On 10/08/2013 12:36 AM, A. Walton wrote: > My only question is why GIO and not GDK? This kind of per-platform API > would happily reside in GDK and prevent us from adding even more > extension points to GIO. There's really nothing I/Oish about this API > (despite GIO already being the home for lost GObjects since there's no > GDesktop library between Glib and GTK+)
It's been suggested that GIO "really" stands for "GLib's Interesting Objects" or something like that. Anyway, there is no expectation at this point that things added to it are especially I/O-related. libglib is for generically-useful stuff that doesn't depend on GObject, libgobject is basically reserved for the object system itself and stuff very closely tied to it (eg, GBinding), and libgio is for generically-useful stuff that does depend on GObject. On 10/07/2013 04:38 PM, Sébastien Wilmet wrote: > How to handle the dependency to enchant in GIO? Is a hard dependency a > problem? enchant depends on glib, so yes, a hard dependency on it from glib would be a problem. But enchant development has more or less stopped (last commit was two years ago), and if glib had equivalent functionality then enchant would be pretty much unnecessary. So it might make more sense to just absorb it into glib (which Dom seemed in favor of in that bug anyway). -- Dan _______________________________________________ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
