On Fri, 2010-06-25 at 09:54 -0700, John Ralls wrote: > On Jun 25, 2010, at 8:28 AM, Bastien Nocera wrote: > > > On Fri, 2010-06-25 at 08:11 -0700, John Ralls wrote: > >> On Jun 25, 2010, at 7:48 AM, Havoc Pennington wrote: > >> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 10:11 AM, Stuart Axon <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> I was reading about XCB and trawled through the gtk list archives noticed > >>>> there was some discussion, but that deprecating gtkx.h seemed to stall > >>>> things. > >>>> Maybe now that gtk3 is coming up it would be the time to consider > >>>> deprecating > >>>> this, so that in future it could move to XCB? > >>>> > >>> > >>> You can't really just deprecate it without a replacement, since there > >>> are plenty of legitimate reasons to get at the underlying X stuff. > >>> > >>> I guess maybe gdkx.h could avoid including the actual xlib or xcb > >>> headers, and instead use its own XID typedefs, and have some kind of > >>> API to abstract Display* vs. xcb_connection_t* etc. But that's the > >>> real hard part I would think. > >> > >> Here we go again. Is Gtk+ a cross-platform toolkit or is it a wrapper for > >> X11? > > > > What does that have to do with anything? GDK allows access to the > > underlying windowing system, be it OS X, Windows, or X11. That's a > > feature. > > > Not exactly, and its being a feature is debatable. > > Consider that gtkx.h exposes more than 50 functions (more than 60 if > MULTIHEAD_SAFE isn't defined). gdkquartz.h exposes 5 and gdkwin32.h > exposes 6, plus 5 more with the comment "For internal GTK use only". > Hardly equal access to the underlying windowing system. It's because > Gdk's close adherence to the X11 interface means that it implements a > lot of features which make no sense at all outside of X11.
The problem is that you're comparing things that aren't really comparable. Without a number of those, you cannot use "mostly" GTK/GDK to implement things like a status icon tray, the GtkPlug widget, or a window manager. All those aren't needed on other platforms, because they're implemented differently. If you have specific griefs against some of the functions being exported, best to file a bug, and explain why you think it should be removed, and what it would be replaced by in the users of those functions, if any. _______________________________________________ gtk-devel-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
