Re: Convenience utility for Glade users

["Douglas C. MacKenzie" <doug mobile-intelligence com>]

I compile a default glade file into the executable and
provide a command line option to use a different one.
I also compile all custom glyphs into the executable
using a similar technique.

I think it is critical to have a single executable that
doesn't depend on finding other files at runtime.  
It is too hard to get all installations correct.

Doug


On Fri, 2006-06-30 at 14:36 -0500, Jonathon Jongsma wrote:
> On 6/30/06, Mohammed Sameer <msameer foolab org> wrote:
> > [snip]
> > On Fri, Jun 30, 2006 at 02:05:12PM -0500, Bob Caryl wrote:
> > > Hello all,
> > >
> > > and because I have a phobia about my executables being
> > > dependent on "load files"
> >
> > I always thought taht keeping such files "outside" the binary is better.
> >
> > I'm not trying to say that my approach is better than your approach. I'm just trying
> > to understand the reasons behind your point of view of possible!
> >
> 
> It depends on your definition of 'better' :)  Having it outside of the
> executable is better in the sense that you can just update a text file
> to change the UI and not have to recompile the binary.  But having it
> compiled into the executable is better in the sense that it will never
> fail to find the UI definition because of a permission problem or disk
> read error, or something like that.  So you just have to choose which
> one you value more.
>