On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 5:18 AM, Daniel Drake <d...@laptop.org> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 8:11 AM, C. Scott Ananian <csc...@laptop.org> wrote: >> I'd originally thought that refactoring the Sugar API into more >> independent modules would be a necessary part of the effort, just to >> be able to do a more incremental port. I'd like to see that >> refactoring happen, but I guess it's good that it's not on the >> critical path? > > As mixing pygtk/gtk2 and pygi/gtk3 is not possible, splitting into > more modules would be unlikely to help much. For example, if an > activity pulled one one GTK2-ported module and one GTK3-ported module, > it would have to stick with GTK2.
By "independent modules" I meant modules communicating via DBus or g-o-i (C interface), not python all-in-one-interpreter modules. I should probably have said "independent libraries"; maybe that would have been clearer. (Memory management has to be thought through, but you could embed a python interpreter and a pile of python code into a library which exports a C API. Such a library can be running any version of python you like; it doesn't leak out and infect other libraries/modules.) --scott -- ( http://cscott.net ) _______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel