Re: reforming libgdome object-oriented-fashion with gobject

Hi.

On Fri, 14 Feb 2003, Kang Jeong-Hee wrote:
> as a gtk application developer, I really miss gobject style of object and class system.
> do you mind if libgdome reformed with gobject's GType and etc.?
> 
> if you don't, I'll ask W3C local office a full map of DOM classes hierarchy
> and make libgdome's objects and vtabs to GType-intergrated objects and classes.
> 
> and may I have your advice for this work?

some comments: a) re-implementing libgdome so to use gobjects is a _MAJOR_
project. It implies changing basically everything.

b) why do you have to ask a W3C local office a map of DOM classes,
wouldn't the DOM technical specification be enough?

c) I agree that having gdome with gobjects would be very nice for
consistency with other libraries, but what are the other advantages now
that the library has been developed and reached a fairly stable point? My
point of view is certainly biased by the fact that I can hardly conceive
OO programming in C, except in those cases (like Gdome) where having the C
layer helps people in writing bindings for different languages. Although I
followed gdome2 development, I admit I never (never!) use it directly. I
always use some higher-level binding that best suits my needs. If you were
to start anew a big project, wouldn't you consider to write it in another
language which is not C? But I'm going off-topic here and probably
starting again the old flame about the favorite programming language...

d) I have no particular advice just I'm not convinced at all this should
be the way to go (at least in the short term). I'd also like to hear
opinions from other gdome2 users on this. Again, if I were to do something
like this, I would consider doing it from scratch or directly in another
language, but in any case I see this as a long-term project.

-- luca