On 26/05/15 10:05, Cedric BAIL wrote: > On Sun, May 24, 2015 at 3:23 AM, ChunEon Park <her...@naver.com> wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: "Cedric BAIL"<cedric.b...@free.fr> >> To: "Enlightenment developer >> list"<enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>; >> Cc: >> Sent: 2015-05-22 (금) 23:21:38 >> Subject: Re: [E-devel] [EGIT] [core/elementary] master 01/01: elementary: >> Create new widget for image masking >> >> That's already what I am doing. I am working on using the currently in >> development combobox for elementary in Terminology. It will obviously >> not land before we are good with that. Same goes with elm_code, tabs >> and other example I pointed to you in my previous mail. >> >> -> I don't understand your point. We need a widget for common cases. not a >> specific app. >> I don't worry about the apps you mentioned because those kind of developers >> are advanced and expert to efl. >> And this case you mentioned never prove the widget if only the app is using >> it. >> if the app is disappeared, then tabs or elm_code is useless also because >> nowhere it will be used. >> We need more various apps and contents. > > Indeed you don't understand my point here. By forcing us to work > publicly on integrating a new widget into a useful application, we > make sure that the widget is really useful, usable and make sense in > the bigger picture. Whatever the application you use it in, if it > makes sense to use it there, then we are good with that widget. > > As the example I took, it is making sense now to move terminology tab > widget inside elementary as they did prove themself. elm_code or > elm_combobox still need work before we rich that point. I hope this is > clearer now. > >> Our efl apis is unkind to beginners and developers tends to ignore our apis >> because accesibility is too expensive to them. > > It is unking because we do not provide the feature they want in the > existing widget, or because we are missing the widget they want, but > also because we have a massive number of object that for a part of > them doesn't make sense. I have no problem adding feature or widget if > they make sense. > We have had for more years than I can remember a request by many > people using our API for multi column support in genlist. That is > something that I know at least Adrien and Jeff would use in their > application right away. That's a real example of difficulty to use > EFL. I have yet to see someone asking for a "mask" widget and use it > in a meaningful application. Using a true fact, our api is unkind to > developers, as an argument to add a "mask" widget doesn't make it more > relevant. > >> Elementary has many useless widgets, features that have been dismissed >> and not maintained over time. I don't find any excuse to increase that >> bad trend and yes, I will hold myself to that standard. I won't push >> feature or widget in Elementary that are not used by an application. I >> don't set rules for other if I don't follow them myself this is >> obvious, and I would hope you know me better. >> >> -> Do you know? Most widgets are still maintained by samsung. >> those widgets you are thinking useless are the most being used widgets in >> the efl. >> Some of them is used for Tizen. Whatever you think, but those are the most >> favorite widgets in apps. > > We are barely maintaining them. I know that we are using some of them > in Tizen, but I bet we are not using all of them. For exemple, how > often is day selector used ? We have barely done any maintenance work > on that widget over the last year... That's just an example. > As for our effort at doing maintenance, we can not keep up with it. > There is a massive need for refactoring code in elementary and nobody > has time for it. The number of open bug keep growing and we can't keep > them in check. Yes, we do maintenance, but there is just to much work > to do. So adding new stuff in that is not valuable enough is a waste > of energie and time in the short run, but worth overtime it is > draining our ressource. We need to keep our focus and not loose it. >
Just to revive this discussion, as the consensus seems negative, but it's still in. -- Tom. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
