Federico Mena Quintero wrote: > On Tue, 2006-09-05 at 13:45 -0400, Havoc Pennington wrote: > >> This has never made sense to me - what would be not able to go in gtk or >> other appropriate lib? There just isn't anything. I'd say the definition >> of gtk is an API for writing GUI apps. So if something is usually needed >> to write GUI apps, gtk should have it, or something is busted. >> >> http://live.gnome.org/ProjectRidley breaks out these "B" and "C" >> categories of X or GNOME specific stuff; I don't think that is a good >> way to break it down. If a general-purpose app really needs particular >> functionality, gtk has to provide some way for the app to do it, >> cross-platform or not. There's a gdk/gdkx.h for a reason, and the file >> selector can backend to gnome-vfs for a reason. > > There's no reason to have a library separate to GTK+. I agree with > that. We do need to consolidate the gnome-ish stuff into GTK+ proper. > > However, we need to *finally* bite the bullet and do something about the > two big problems in the base platform: GConf and Gnome-VFS. We haven't > put them under the GTK+ umbrella for semi-good reasons which turn out to > be semi-bad excuses in the end (sucky API? clean it up already! not > documented? write the goddamn docs! CORBA? do you even care that it > is an implementation detail?). > > [I hate myself for having had to add a custom way to save settings to > GtkFileChooser, and that way is *not* GConf simply because I can't use > it. And I definitely hate having to maintain both GtkFileSystemGnomeVFS > (the one I care about), and GtkFilesystemUnix (for the three people who > want to run GTK+ by itself).] > > [This is also a good excuse to start deprecating the POSIX-y stuff in > Gnome-VFS, leaving in place only the meaty stuff like > GnomeVFSVolumeMonitor, the URL-mangling utilities, etc.]
I think GConf (and Windows registry) and Gnome-vfs should definitely be abstracted in glib in some manner. It would be nice if this could be done in conjunction with the portland/freedesktop guys so it could easily allow other filesystems and config systems to be used as a backend (which would probably default to POSIX and ini files respectively). Bear in mind XFCE also uses gtk so I dont think for example directly exposing Gnome-vfs would be a good idea (they already have their own simpler vfs). -- Mr Jamie McCracken http://jamiemcc.livejournal.com/ _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
