On Wed, 02 Oct 2013 17:01:09 +0200 Thomas Martitz <thomas.mart...@student.htw-berlin.de> wrote:
> To sum the problem up: > - As long as we're still on GTK+ 2.x we won't be able to use upstream > Glade (Geany on GTK+3 is fine, btw, thanks for that work). > - Worse, only a few older versions work. This would have been a problem if the new versions were better, which is questionable, to say the least. > - And even more worse, you can't practically interchange glade > versions because the generated .xml tends to be ordered differently (I, > myself, don't care about that but I understand it makes viewing commit > diffs harder). Not only. Some versions emit some properties and/or element attributes even if they have the default or non-applicable values. For example, our Glade current version, whichever it may be, mass produces property can_focus, property use_action_appearance and signal attribute swapped. > 3) Fix the icon-names thing (assuming one of us is capable to do so) The icon creation should be possible with ~15 gtk_icon_*() calls, or simply by including the icon factory xml fragment in the source and invoking gtk_builder_add_from_string(). The attachment shoudn't be a problem either. > 4) Declare that only our glade copy can be used to change the UI. > > Basically I'm suggesting that we set a glade version in stone which is > capable of handling our UI generation and make it mandatory for all > contributors. By integrating into the Geany tree it's easy to find and > we can make sure it keeps working. Wait, we had this! A 2.x version which was stable, and even generated C code. So we didn't need to distribute an extra 625KB .xml file, load it on startup, and abort if it doesn't exist. And IIRC, the executable was only a few percent larger. I know, I know, we won't revert to the old Glade, because the progress is such a progress, and whoever (Matthew?) wrote the builder code must be proud if it because it emulates Glade 2.x ui_lookup. So internally we use 2.x, except for some (find / fif) dialogs, which are constructed with code... Am I the only one which sees some other problems here? > Is there a problem with this approach? Our Glade version will become outdated, and we'll replace it with the new best thing, because it's <strike>the best</strike> new and shining. That's the human nature. :) -- E-gards: Jimmy _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.geany.org https://lists.geany.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel
