> The only drawback I see to using libglade is that the final executable to
> install on users' machines has to include a separate xml file. This
> increases the ways in which the user can screw things up (they can modify
> the xml file, or delete it, or put it in the wrong place). But the benefits
> may outweigh this disadvantage.
Not necesarly. You can just embed the XML file in your executable
easily (there are many ways of doing this: including the source
directly into the executabel, including a binary gziped version of
it), etc.
For the kind of applications you are writing at Eazel, there is most
likely going to be a lot of extra data that will be included with the
package.
And end users will probably be installing the application using a
package system, so this should hopefully not be a problem.
> One other question about this technique: how can I (or just can I)
> intersperse my own subclassed widgets, which Glade doesn't know about, among
> the standard widgets layed out in Glade?
What I usually do is sticking my own widgets manually inside the glade
file. For example, I would create a container, and fill the container
at runtime with the customized widget.
Miguel.
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with the line "unsubscribe glade-devel" in the body of the message.
