The GTK2 line of development

The GTK2 line of development

[Andy Wingo]

Hello all,

I'm curious about the place of the GTK2 line of development within the
whole guile-gtk project. It seems that some folks are not interested in
GTK2 at all -- is this right? In that case, we have two separate
projects (and in fact they share hardly any code, although I have used
some ideas, as well as event-repl.scm from guile-gtk) and should put
them in different places. What's the deal?

I suppose we can enumerate some options,

 - within savannah.nongnu.org
   * has the advantage that all guile-gtk stuff is in the same place
    (maybe it's an advantage, who knows)

 - in gnome cvs
   * keeps continuity with guile-gobject 0.2.0, although that work was
     likely placed in gnome cvs just out of convenience for martin

 - where else? those seem to be the options. we could do sourceforge,
   but that's subject to the whims of va software; that doesn't seem as
   stable as savannah

In any case, the web page needs cleaning and updating so that we can
make sense out of this mess. And that tarball really needs to make it
into CVS somewhere.

Also, we need to decide on some module namespace issues, don't we? Right
now all the GNOME 2 side is under (gnome). So we have (gnome gobject),
(gnome gtk), (gnome gstreamer) [see gst-guile in gstreamer cvs], etc. Is
this ok?

Can we get some input in here from those working on the 1.2 side of
things as well as from 2.x? The sooner this gets settled, the sooner we
can get some good work (and play) done :-)

regards,

wingo.

Re: The GTK2 line of development

[Stan Pinte]

On Sat, 24 May 2003 12:41:11 +0100
Andy Wingo <wingo@pobox.com> wrote:

> Hello all,
> 
> I'm curious about the place of the GTK2 line of development within the
> whole guile-gtk project. It seems that some folks are not interested in
> GTK2 at all -- is this right? In that case, we have two separate
> projects (and in fact they share hardly any code, although I have used
> some ideas, as well as event-repl.scm from guile-gtk) and should put
> them in different places. What's the deal?
> 
> I suppose we can enumerate some options,
> 
>  - within savannah.nongnu.org
>    * has the advantage that all guile-gtk stuff is in the same place
>     (maybe it's an advantage, who knows)


I would favor that option, as I just moved the (gnome guile) code from the Gnome CVS to the savannah Guile-gtk project. (All the (gnome guile) code is in a separate module, under http://savannah.nongnu.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs/guile-gtk/gnome-guile-0.1/

Maybe the naming of the module needs some refactoring, we can discuss that. 

> 
>  - in gnome cvs
>    * keeps continuity with guile-gobject 0.2.0, although that work was
>      likely placed in gnome cvs just out of convenience for martin
> 
>  - where else? those seem to be the options. we could do sourceforge,
>    but that's subject to the whims of va software; that doesn't seem as
>    stable as savannah
> 
> In any case, the web page needs cleaning and updating so that we can
> make sense out of this mess. And that tarball really needs to make it
> into CVS somewhere.
> 
> Also, we need to decide on some module namespace issues, don't we? Right
> now all the GNOME 2 side is under (gnome). So we have (gnome gobject),
> (gnome gtk), (gnome gstreamer) [see gst-guile in gstreamer cvs], etc. Is
> this ok?
> 
> Can we get some input in here from those working on the 1.2 side of
> things as well as from 2.x? The sooner this gets settled, the sooner we
> can get some good work (and play) done :-)
> 
> regards,
> 
> wingo.
> 

Re: The GTK2 line of development

[Kevin Ryde]

Andy Wingo <wingo@pobox.com> writes:
>
> I'm curious about the place of the GTK2 line of development within the
> whole guile-gtk project. It seems that some folks are not interested in
> GTK2 at all -- is this right?

Speaking only for myself, I arrived at the 1.2 branch because I wanted
to write a program, and that stuff was what seemed to work.

But gtk 1.2 is a bit of a dead end unfortunately.  I'd like to see the
main guile-gtk support basically whatever is the current gtk.  Perhaps
with some conditionals to support a few past versions, if that's of
interest and if it's not too hard.

> So we have (gnome gobject),

That's the glib gobject I take it.  Perhaps glib should have an
independent existance (glib glib), (glib gobject), etc.

(But within one project.  I think all in one would be easiest for
development, mainly since I think each higher interface is going to
need to know a good deal about how the lower ones are implemented, and
there's probably a good amount of common stuff anyway.)

Re: The GTK2 line of development

[Andy Wingo]

On Mon, 26 May 2003, Kevin Ryde wrote:

> But gtk 1.2 is a bit of a dead end unfortunately.  I'd like to see the
> main guile-gtk support basically whatever is the current gtk.  Perhaps
> with some conditionals to support a few past versions, if that's of
> interest and if it's not too hard.

Unfortunately the codebases are, as you know, completely separate. The
underlying type systems are also different enough to prevent easy
adaptation of either codebase to the other version. It's not worth it.

> > So we have (gnome gobject),
> 
> That's the glib gobject I take it.  Perhaps glib should have an
> independent existance (glib glib), (glib gobject), etc.

I was wondering myself about that. The thing that binds the projects
together are the binding generation code (defs-support, gw-utils, etc)
and that they are all based on the GObject type system, with the
exception of GLib. Gnome is the overarching project under which all are
being developed though, and if I had to choose a name that would be it.

Of course, glib doesn't depend at all on gnome, the current module name
notwithstanding.

> (But within one project.  I think all in one would be easiest for
> development, mainly since I think each higher interface is going to
> need to know a good deal about how the lower ones are implemented, and
> there's probably a good amount of common stuff anyway.)

Yeah. I think, though, since it is all one project, why not have it
under one namespace?

regards,

wingo.

Re: The GTK2 line of development

[Andy Wingo]

On Sat, 24 May 2003, Stan Pinte wrote:

> On Sat, 24 May 2003 12:41:11 +0100
> Andy Wingo <wingo@pobox.com> wrote:
> 
> >  - within savannah.nongnu.org
> >    * has the advantage that all guile-gtk stuff is in the same place
> >     (maybe it's an advantage, who knows)
> 
> I would favor that option, as I just moved the (gnome guile) code from
> the Gnome CVS to the savannah Guile-gtk project. (All the (gnome guile)
> code is in a separate module, under
> http://savannah.nongnu.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs/guile-gtk/gnome-guile-0.1/

Sounds reasonable. The developers on this codebase will probably be
mainly guile hackers rather than gnome hackers, so that seems about
right. Then we just have to figure out package names and module names.

The gtk-1.2 code uses the module name (gtk gtk), if I'm not mistaken.
See the previous email for my thoughts on namespaces -- there's no
collision here, in my eyes. The guile-gnome code that was in
gnome-guile-0.10 (I am getting confused now) uses the module (gnome
gnome). Hmm...

I guess ideally(tm) I would like the (gnome ...) namespace to be
reserved for the 2.x version. That does conflict with the current naming
of your project, does it not? Still, if you continue to use (gnome
guile) and submodules, there shouldn't be any problems.

The win-win situation would be to coerce you to join 2.x development,
hehehe ;-)

Do I have a correct summary of the situation?

regards,

wingo.

Re: The GTK2 line of development

[Stan Pinte]

On Mon, 26 May 2003 18:44:48 +0100
Andy Wingo <wingo@pobox.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 24 May 2003, Stan Pinte wrote:
> 
> > On Sat, 24 May 2003 12:41:11 +0100
> > Andy Wingo <wingo@pobox.com> wrote:
> > 
> > >  - within savannah.nongnu.org
> > >    * has the advantage that all guile-gtk stuff is in the same place
> > >     (maybe it's an advantage, who knows)
> > 
> > I would favor that option, as I just moved the (gnome guile) code from
> > the Gnome CVS to the savannah Guile-gtk project. (All the (gnome guile)
> > code is in a separate module, under
> > http://savannah.nongnu.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs/guile-gtk/gnome-guile-0.1/
> 
> Sounds reasonable. The developers on this codebase will probably be
> mainly guile hackers rather than gnome hackers, so that seems about
> right. Then we just have to figure out package names and module names.
> 
> The gtk-1.2 code uses the module name (gtk gtk), if I'm not mistaken.
> See the previous email for my thoughts on namespaces -- there's no
> collision here, in my eyes. The guile-gnome code that was in
> gnome-guile-0.10 (I am getting confused now) uses the module (gnome
> gnome). Hmm...
> 
> I guess ideally(tm) I would like the (gnome ...) namespace to be
> reserved for the 2.x version. That does conflict with the current naming
> of your project, does it not? Still, if you continue to use (gnome
> guile) and submodules, there shouldn't be any problems.

Currently, the naming used are the following:

(gnome gnome).

I agree to change it to (gnome guile) as soon as it compiles and runs ok...

> 
> The win-win situation would be to coerce you to join 2.x development,
> hehehe ;-)

I'ld really like to have a first working version of the gnome bindings, rather than migrate the whole stuff now...but no problem for migratring toward 2.x afterwards.

> 
> Do I have a correct summary of the situation?

Yes,

Stan.

> 
> regards,
> 
> wingo.
> 

Re: The GTK2 line of development

[Dale P. Smith]

On Mon, 26 May 2003 18:31:26 +0100
Andy Wingo <wingo@pobox.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 26 May 2003, Kevin Ryde wrote:

> I was wondering myself about that. The thing that binds the projects
> together are the binding generation code (defs-support, gw-utils, etc)
> and that they are all based on the GObject type system, with the
> exception of GLib. Gnome is the overarching project under which all are
> being developed though, and if I had to choose a name that would be it.
> 
> Of course, glib doesn't depend at all on gnome, the current module name
> notwithstanding.
> 
> > (But within one project.  I think all in one would be easiest for
> > development, mainly since I think each higher interface is going to
> > need to know a good deal about how the lower ones are implemented, and
> > there's probably a good amount of common stuff anyway.)
> 
> Yeah. I think, though, since it is all one project, why not have it
> under one namespace?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding this, but please make sure that gtk/glib
can be used (and built!) without gnome.

-Dale

-- 
Dale P. Smith
Senior Systems Consultant,      | Treasurer,
Altus Technologies Corporation  | Cleveland Linux Users Group
dsmith at altustech dot com     | http://cleveland.lug.net
440-746-9000 x239               |

Re: The GTK2 line of development

[Andy Wingo]

On Mon, 02 Jun 2003, Dale P. Smith wrote:

> On Mon, 26 May 2003 18:31:26 +0100
> Andy Wingo <wingo@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> > Yeah. I think, though, since it is all one project, why not have it
> > under one namespace?
> 
> Maybe I'm misunderstanding this, but please make sure that gtk/glib
> can be used (and built!) without gnome.

Not a problem. There are a couple of AM_CONDITIONALS that I still have
to put in, but at the moment I don't have any gnome wrappers at the
moment. You should be able to even build just the GLib/GObject bindings
(without Gtk).

wingo.