Hi Daniel: > Am Dienstag, den 12.06.2007, 07:42 -0400 schrieb Willie Walker: > > http://live.gnome.org/GAP/PythonATSPI gives more information on these > > bindings. A big difference between pyatspi and pyspi is that pyspi > > requires the AT-SPI cspi layer (potentially to be deprecated) whereas > > pyatspi doesn't. > > that answers some questions, given that (according to the Wiki page) > existing applications are planned to transition to pyatspi.
Yeah - having unified Python bindings that everyone uses, and having them work with Python facilities directly rather than requiring the AT-SPI cspi bindings is a good thing. Plus, these two items were key for me: * To hide the CORBA-isms of accessing AT-SPI through pyORBit * To minimize churn if/when the AT-SPI transport layer is changed > Now I wonder how I should call the package. python-pyatspi maybe (as > python-at-spi has been taken already by pyspi). Ha! Yeah, needing to use pyatspi was unfortunate, but all other names under the sun seemed to be taken by various projects. > Any suggestions? I say sticking with something that matches given patterns and names might be a good thing. How about just pyatspi? Maybe just including it with libatspi and not making it a separate package would be another alternative? Will _______________________________________________ Gnome-accessibility-devel mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-accessibility-devel
