Re: Usage of Gnome libs (was: Re: Print plugin)

2000-02-01 Thread Daniel . Egger

On  1 Feb, Sven Neumann wrote:

> This is supposed to be first class font-rendering and if it prooves to
> be useful, I see no reason not to use it, even it has gnome printed
> on it.

 Well, if it really is first class rendering, then I'd like to see it
 in GIMP I haven't yet seen this package, is it in the CVS?

>> > gnome-canvas  for the UI (he draw routines we use on the gimp
>> > canvas are very difficult to handle, using objects that can be
>> > connected to and emit signals would make our live much easier)
 
>>  I didn't really get your point here
 
> Look into the code that handles the bezier_curves UI. A good part of 
> that code is doing nothing but checking if the mouse is on a
> control-point. Now imagine the control-points were objects that emit 
> signals like enter, leave, clicked etc. Do you start getting my point?

 Now I do but AFAIK gnome-canvas is a fixed part of gnome-libs, or
 am I anybody working on seperating it? 

>>  Okay, I wouldn't even mind to make libart mandantory...
 
> Why? libart was developed explictely to work w/o gnome-libs. It's an
> extremly useful library that fits perfectly to our needs.

 Uhm, maybe I just can't get no real English sentence out of my
 keyboard, in other words: Okay, go for it, link it to the GIMP :))

>>  Optionally this would be okay, although I prefer Rastermans
>>  Imlib2... It may be that gdk-pixbuf focuses too much on the needs of
>>  a desktop or were there any other reasons to go away from Imlib?
 
> All I know about Imlib2 is that is has a lot of features we will never
> need.

 For example? Everything that is in Imlib2 so far would be also usable
 for the kind of actions you mentioned

> I don't see why gdk-pixbuf looks desktop-centric to you,

 That's my conclusion from the GNOME team wlaking away from Imlib and
 Imlib2... why else should they do that?

> but it certainly has a small memory-footprint, is fast and it
> integrates nicely with GTK+.

 GTK+? You meant gdk I guess and so does Imlib as well

>>  I think the preferences dialog is very nice, anyway I'd prefer using
>>  XML as a save format for configureations and even for scripts.
>>  This would make macro recording possible... But having a centric
>>  configuration possibility for GIMP doesn't make any sense to me
>>  anyone out there who would like to configure it via GNOMEs
>>  control-center or via console? :))

> Did I say control-center?

 gconf is the new replacement for the control-center

> Daniel, this is FUD! You talk about using XML.

 Sven, gconf uses gnome-xml for storing preferences data, and that's
 something I really like about it

> Do you want to write your own parser?

 Why? It's already there... and I really like the idea of getting away
 from our current system...

> I'm not advertising  gnome-conf since I don't know much about it, I
> just mentioned it as an example of stuff that might be of interest.

 Well, gconf is designed as a general purpose configuration system which
 can use several backends for storing it's data and several frontends for
 modifying preferences.

> Let's argue about using GNOME. It does not make sense to turn your
> head only if something has GNOME written on it.

 I don't have anything against GNOME... I like it in fact because the
 whole desktop environment has a small memory footprint and is fast
 compared with KDE. But I really doubt it is good for ANY big project
 which is not really related to GNOME to depend on it

> And remember: this has
> nothing to do with the desktop, the control-center or whatever. All we
> are talking about is if we want to use selected parts of the
> libraries that evolved around gnome. The good thing about these libs
> is that they are maintained and integrate nicely with GTK+ and its
> object system.

 Great, then we're on the same side

> As said before, a lot depends on the will of the GNOME people to
> release those libs in small packages without throwing too much
> gnome-specific stuff into them. I think we would already use the
> canvas now if it would have been released seperately.

>  (gnome-xml)<- not sure if we will need this one

 I think this could be very useful

> With the execption of the canvas all this is AFAIK already available
> outside of gnome-libs. 

 Sven, I don't really know why you are arguing against me; It really
 seems like we do have the same things in mind so let's spend our time
 on realising them

-- 

Servus,
   Daniel



Re: Usage of Gnome libs (was: Re: Print plugin)

2000-02-01 Thread Marc Lehmann

On Tue, Feb 01, 2000 at 05:07:01PM +0100, Sven Neumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
> > > gnome-canvas  for the UI (he draw routines we use on the gimp
> >  I didn't really get your point here
> 
> Look into the code that handles the bezier_curves UI. A good part of 

The problem with gnome is solely that its monolithic, without the need
to be so. If that will be resolved (which seems naturally for me), no
problem.  In the past, however, the gnome people did not like to do that
for us...

> >  Okay, I wouldn't even mind to make libart mandantory...
> 
> Why? libart was developed explictely to work w/o gnome-libs. It's an
> extremly useful library that fits perfectly to our needs.

Thats probably the reason why he does NOT mind to make it mandatory ;)

> Did I say control-center? Daniel, this is FUD! You talk about using XML. 
> Do you want to write your own parser?

Nobody needs that. expat is available freely, small, extremely fats and
portable. Most languages (python, perl) have already interfaces to it.

And we could even use the "proprietary" gnome-xml package, if it is
self-contained.

BTW, the much more important problem (for me) of plug-in management would
be helped a lot if a dependable xml parser were available (I'll just
requite expat on developer machines), since I'd like to use the OSD (w3's
open software description) format (an XML application) to store plug-in
information.

> evolved around gnome. The good thing about these libs is that they are
> maintained and integrate nicely with GTK+ and its object system.  As
> said before, a lot depends on the will of the GNOME people to release
> those libs in small packages without throwing too much gnome-specific

That bad thing is that most of that stuff is monolithic. And the gnome
people were very reluctant in the past to seperate their beloved
gnome-libs into its conmponents. I don't believe this will change.

> stuff into them. I think we would already use the canvas now if it would 
> have been released seperately.

Exactly.

>  (gnome-xml)<- not sure if we will need this one

I still wonder why they didn't use proven and fast technology (expat), and
invented their own system (which is slower and has more bugs).

> With the execption of the canvas all this is AFAIK already available
> outside of gnome-libs. 

Then we should consider it. However, "outside gnome-libs" does not mean
that these libraries do not require it.

-- 
  -==- |
  ==-- _   |
  ---==---(_)__  __   __   Marc Lehmann  +--
  --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ /   [EMAIL PROTECTED] |e|
  -=/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\   XX11-RIPE --+
The choice of a GNU generation   |
 |