Re: GNOME HIG and libglade2

From: Michael D. Pritchett (mpritchett@attglobal.net)
Date: Wed Feb 05 2003 - 05:41:44 EST

  • Next message: Johan Björk: "Re: GNOME HIG and libglade2"

    On Tue, 4 Feb 2003, Dom Lachowicz wrote:

    > > I also tend not to want more library dependencies.
    > > What about adding this stuff only for the Gnome
    > > build?
    >
    > This defeats the proposed purposes for using glade.
    >
    > Win32 has RC files to aide in the creation and storage
    > of dialogs, created by DevC.

    RC files do not add an additional dependancy at runtime. The resources
    are compiled into the executable. If I understand how libglade2 works,
    you use glade as a GUI widget designer, you pass the glade design or
    libglade2 during runtime which then returns gtk2 widgets for the
    screen. The end result is an extra step compared to what we do now.

    >
    > Cocoa has NIB files to aide in the creation and
    > storage of dialogs, created by InterfaceBuilder.
    >

    I have no idea if NIB files require something additional at runtime to
    make widgets. I suppose it could be exactly like libglade2.

    > I see no difference in using glade on the unix
    > platforms. Further, it is a standard library installed
    > by every Linux distribution.
    >
    > Ideally, using glade will enable us to make prettier,
    > more user-friendly HIG-complaint dialogs with less
    > fuss and more quickly. If this comes at the expense of
    > some user not knowing that his AbiWord is linked
    > against libglade (coz in all likelihood it's already
    > installed) then so be it. It's a trade-off that I'm
    > more than willing and eager to make in order that our
    > product comes off looking more polished and friendly
    > with (potentially significantly) less effort.

    libglade2 does not make us more HIG-compliant. libglade2 just makes it
    easier for coders to maintain dialog changes overtime. Again, if I
    understand things correct, this is just giving a nice GUI interface for
    subsequent edits of dialogs.

    I suppose if it is always installed by everybody and always the right
    version and a simple trade-off to be more polished, it will be added to
    our growing list of dependancies for Linux builds.

    >
    > Adding a 100k library dependancy for these purposes
    > should not be construed as bloat.
    >
    > Dom

    Bloat may not be right term. My apologies if isn't.

    As requested initially, I still voice my objection. I have not be
    convinced of the NEED for libglade2 dependancy.

    Cheers!

    Michael D. Pritchett

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Feb 05 2003 - 07:33:09 EST