On 05/11/2011 08:57 PM, Benjamin Otte wrote:
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 10:46 PM, Brian Cameron
wrote:
A main reason that there are multiple sets of interfaces is to make the
free desktop accessibility interfaces widget-set neutral. A huge
amount of effort has been invested over the years to mak
On 05/11/2011 02:10 PM, Li Yuan wrote:
于 2011/5/11 2:38, Federico Mena Quintero 写道:
ATK is "duplicated" interfaces. It needs to be kept in sync with the
rather axiomatic interfaces provided by at-spi. It has to deal with
messy details like GTK+'s reference counting (and who knows if at-spi i
于 2011/5/10 22:28, Benjamin Otte 写道:
Due to the previous reasons, the ATK interface is bitrotting. The code
is crashing more and generally behaving buggier with every release.
This was not that much of a problem while the GTK API remained mostly
stable during the GTK 2 cycle, but turned a lot wor
On May 9, 2011, at 7:57 PM, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> I don't have a fear of toplevel dirs. If people insist on having tests
> outside of the source tree (I personally like things in gtk/tests
> ...), then what is wrong with just having reftests/ as a toplevel
> directory ? We already have perf/, an
On May 9, 2011, at 7:07 PM, Benjamin Otte wrote:
>> I think this only makes sense if we want to continue to maintain this
>> division between frequently and less frequently run tests.
>>
> What is a "frequently run" test? I can tell you that no treeview test
> qualifies as "frequently run" to me
I originally submitted a bug under pygobject introspection, however, I
think I've figured out that the problem is with the missing "(array
length=n_targets)" annotation in the gtk-doc for
gtk_tree_view_enable_model_drag_source(). Not sure if this is more
appropriate for this list instead. A patch i
Benjamin:
Overall, I was just trying to suggest that I think we need more analysis
before making a decision. You raise a number of important issues at the
GTK+ layer, but there are many high-level issues that also need to be
considered. Cross-free-desktop interoperability is just an example.
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 10:46 PM, Brian Cameron
wrote:
>
> A main reason that there are multiple sets of interfaces is to make the
> free desktop accessibility interfaces widget-set neutral. A huge
> amount of effort has been invested over the years to make GNOME and KDE
> accessibility interoper
On 05/11/2011 02:13 PM, David Zeuthen wrote:
Hey,
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 4:14 AM, Piñeiro wrote:
So if in the future we change D-Bus for "MyAwesomeIPC" that would be totally
broken. On the current state, gail code, cally code and in general any ATK
implementation didn't require to be modified
Hey,
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 4:14 AM, Piñeiro wrote:
> So if in the future we change D-Bus for "MyAwesomeIPC" that would be totally
> broken. On the current state, gail code, cally code and in general any ATK
> implementation didn't require to be modified at all due those abstraction
> layers. Th
I have realized that I forgot to include gtk-devel@list in my answer.
C&P my answer here, just in case someone is interested. Please, if you
want to answer this mail, also include gnome-accessibility-de...@gnome.org
===
On 05/10/2011 08:38 PM, Federico Mena Quintero wrote:
In general your mai
I have realized that I forgot to include gtk-devel@list in my answer.
C&P my answer here, just in case someone is interested. Please, if you
want to answer this mail, also include gnome-accessibility-de...@gnome.org
===
On 05/10/2011 04:28 PM, Benjamin Otte wrote:
So I've been thinking about
12 matches
Mail list logo
