On Fri, 2006-04-21 at 11:17 +0100, Jamie McCracken wrote: > Rodrigo Moya wrote: > > On Thu, 2006-04-20 at 23:00 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote: > >>>> There are other languages bindings > >>>> in our release set, but none of them have been similarly blessed. > >>>> Assuming Gtk# is added to the bindings set, should it be a language > >>>> core apps can use? > >>> That's an interesting question - put another way, should the desktop > >>> depend on the bindings? I certainly wouldn't have a problem with that - > >>> although making GNOME depend on Mono is an issue which would give me > >>> more pause than making it depend on gtkmm. > >> The desktop already depends on the bindings since we have some python > >> love in the desktop :-) The question is, do we accept all languages in > >> the desktop, or just a small selection of what's available in the > >> bindings (and which selection?). > >> > > I think we should allow everything written with a blessed binding, > > provided that code is optional (like nautilus+beagle integration, for > > instance), so that we don't force 3rd parties to use them if they don't > > want to. > > Definitely not - that is unmanageable and unfair. > > If something is optional it means there are alternatives and one > alternative should not block another (as then an inferior alternative > could block a vastly superior alternative getting into the desktop as > would be the case with beagle and Tracker) > > And if you allow all alternatives in you end up with a mess! > when I mean optional, I'm not really talking about having 'n' alternatives, but about having core modules compilable without that dependency, when possible -- Rodrigo Moya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
_______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
