On 12 February 2015 at 20:50, Jon Nordby <jono...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12 February 2015 at 06:30, Joao S. O. Bueno <gwid...@mpc.com.br> wrote:
>> Hi -
>> after several months I am taking back a look at my Python bindings for
>> GEGL,
>> which make use of gobject introspection.
>> The situation with gobject introspection is none but frustrating - maybe
>> one could use it, if he could live in #gobject on irc - but there seens to
>> be
>> no documentation resources wherever.
>> Moreover, it does not work very well,
>> whenever something is not available using the auto-generated bindings,
>> there is no workaround, but to make/request changes on the upstream
>> project
>> and wait for a new release.
> That can be seen as a feature, it makes sure fixes go upstream, which makes
> it work for every language supported by GI - not just with one particular
> binding.

No doubt about that - if it is being used. But for a moment looking at the
state of lack of documentation, I thought it might have been given up.

>> Add to that things that simply stop working
>> (I just found out I can no longer instantiate a geglBuffer with the
>> gobject
>> introspection - and the solution in my package is a hack already to
>> workaround
>> the constructor failing in the past)
> Due to bug in GI, or changes in GEGL?

Probably changes in GEGL - I will try to take a look this weekend -
I was already using a non-standard constructor as I said (maybe it was Sabo's
wrapper you mentioned in the other message. If so, that is broken now)

>> Moreover, the latest GEGL stable release is still built with introspection
>> off -
>> so people can't make use of the Python bindings without rebuildoing
>> GEGL themselves,
>> as all distros ship the package without the "gir"  files.
> If we have not changed the default go be --with-introspection, we should do
> that now. But yes, it will only work for GEGL 0.3+
>> But -- I may be wrong --- people may be firmly committed to gobject
>> introspection,
>> and it may be the future, and it is my fault not learning it right -
>> And this is the main motivation for this message:
>> Doo anyone believe/think/can explain/ if gobject introspection has a
>> future at all?
> I think if we added testcases for consuming GEGL though Python/GI to
> upstream GEGL we would catch (& hopefully fix) breakages early. If we
> include the bindings library you have created in upstream GEGL to provide
> more Pythonic syntax, we could also add testcases for that. We should then
> ship it by default I think.
> I don't see the GNOME ecosystem switching away from GI anytime soon. And
> despite the pains (docs, bugs, annotations upstream), I do think the model
> is better than hand-writing bindings...

There are tests in my module - possibly not many as there could be -
I'd like to keep the its git separated due to the Python packaging
ecosystem (and merging the histories would be a mess, I guess).
Do you think it could work as  a git submodule in GEGL?


> --
> Jon Nordby - www.jonnor.com
gegl-developer-list mailing list
List address:    gegl-developer-list@gnome.org
List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gegl-developer-list

Reply via email to