Re: [Nautilus-list] Nautilus-Mozilla proposal

[Dave Bordoley <bordoley msu edu>]

> So, do we want to switch to just using the galeon view?
> 
> PROS:
> -----
> * Less code in Nautilus
> * We get a maintainer for the web view
> * We can close the old Mozilla view bugs
> * People claim the galeon view is good (I didn't get it to work)

The current galeon view in version 1.20 works with 1.0.6 very well, what
setup did you try it with?

> * Sharing of common ui and other elements between galeon and nautilus
> 
> CONS:
> -----
> * Another dependency added. In order to get a sane user experience we 
>   would probably have to make the nautilus packages require galeon. 
>   (Although it would not be needed when compiling nautilus.)
>   In fact, this seems to be a bad circular dependency, since galeon would 
>   BuildRequire nautilus and nautilus would (runtime)Require galeon. It may 
>   be solvable though.

Why would we have to make galeon a dependency, it could be optional, eg.
if you want a web experience with nautilus you have to install galeon,
similar to how if you want to view images in nautilus you have to
install EOG. Gnome is after all a component system. Isn't this just a
natural evolution. Also, since galeon is changing its api, i would
assume it would be possible for them to change there build process so
that nautilus would only be required for building the nautilus specific
parts ie. galeon could be optionally built with or without nautilus
support.


> * We lose control of the web-browsing parts of Nautilus. This means that 
>   parts of the UI is defined outside of nautilus, and may evolve in ways 
>   we don't agree with.

Right now I'd say we have no web-browsing in nautilus. Both gtkhtml and
the 1.0.x mozilla views basically amount to html renderers and do not
provide any of the necessary functionality of a full-featured web
browser. a galeon view would solve this problem for us. If ui problems
really got bad for some reason and nautilus and galeon developers could
not agree we could always fork. However I do not see this happening. We
have a hig. 

> * Nautilus and Galeon have different release cycles, so getting a working 
>   release could be painful at times.

As long as the nautilus view api stays stable, how is this an issue.
Galeon has an excellent track record of following the mozilla release
schedule, much better than nautilus.


> * More packaging work for distros to make a nice working setup.
> 

Galeon is included by default with most gnome shipping distros, so i
really don't think this is an issue. We are simply trading components,
ditching nautilus-mozilla and instead using galeon view.


dave