Re: [glade--] error of FC2 and glade--?

Murray Cumming schrieb:
> On Fri, 2004-07-02 at 15:10 +0200, Christof Petig wrote:
>>>It is wrong of Anjuta to suggest that glademm is necessary for gtkmm or
>>>gnomemm development. libglademm, however, is very appropriate.
>>
>>Since you keep telling people to prefer libglademm (your code) without 
>>looking at glademm (my code), I want to emphasize that both have their 
>>value, you simply have to choose. ;-)
> 
> 
> I have to keep telling them because
> a) Anjuta makes them think that this is what they should use, and what
> everyone else is using.

Try to tell the Anjuta maintainers not me ;-) I believe they chose 
glademm since it gives a ready to compile project directory to start 
with. (see below) Sadly none of the anjuta maintainers ever contacted me 
to improve glademm's interaction with anjuta. I simply know they exist 
(somewhere). Neither did I receive any feedback for the ability to use 
glademm to set up a libglademm project.

> b) glademm's name and website don't tell them that it's something
> unusual, or that it's not part of the gnomemm project.

Correct, I'll change that. But most of the time I have to answer the 
_only_ question which is answered on the glademm website on the gtkmm 
mailing list (why can't I access my widgets?). So not many people find 
and read the site :-(

> I don't think that "ability to change the user interface without
> recompilation" is wanted by anyone.

I didn't see it either. But I'm very sure this was one of the most cited 
pros of libglade over glade's C generator (when libglade evolved - 3-4 
years ago?).

> libglademm is just simpler and it more closely wraps what is done in
> GNOME with C - In C, people use libglade but only fools use glade C code
> generation. It is not so bad with glade C++ code generation but it's
> still an unusual technique that I don't believe is suitable for
> beginners.

I still believe that using a tool to set up the project (configure.in, 
Makefile.am, main.cc, window.hh, window.cc) is a very good idea for 
beginners. Glademm offers this as a side effect but that might easily 
get the task of a future external program (which I happily would use for 
glademm. Configure.in generation has always been an error prone task)

No, I do not step forward to get the maintainer of that program. I might 
change glademm to do it once the caller interface is designed.

<further thinking>

It would have been a good idea to separate glademm into several pieces:
- generate UI classes from .glade files (foo_glade.??)
 >This is glademm's core task<
- generate a user class skeleton (foo.??) [possibly add callback stubs 
to an existing]
- generate a project directory (configure.in, Makefile.am, po, intl etc.)
 >I would happily give away the hassle to maintain such a beast<
- frontend to invoke the latter

Perhaps we (the gtkmm + gnomemm + anjuta people and me=glademm) can 
combine efforts to maintain the project skeleton generator. Any 
interest? I'd prepare a cross posting.
     Christof

_______________________________________________
glademm-list mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/glademm-list

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Debian - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFA65rZng+R+0ucfO0RAi7bAJ4uBhvTzjKwMcDHf8lRXuj8wlmW/gCgjWSF
Fuv6DDTnf/W96uqOGOjab04=
=pzZS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----