As a user of the python bindings a clarification of the current status of things and the remaining TODO list would be very helpful. I admit I have not been following closely, but I bet I am not the only one who does not know the answers to do these questions:
- how far is pygi from being production ready? What is missing? - which packages are needed to use pygi bindings? - how do pygi bindings play with current bindings? Can they be mixed in the same application? If yes, mixed how (e.g. can bindings to the same lib be used together)? - how much different is the api? How big is the porting effort? Is there still a way to provide "pythonic" api e.g. functions returning a tuple? - what is the status of pygi and python3? Could it make sense to target python3 with pygi so that people make a single transition in their code? - what is the status of pygi (and introspection in general) with regard to portability to Windows and OSX? Ciao Paolo Il giorno dom, 17/01/2010 alle 23.00 +0100, Tomeu Vizoso ha scritto: > On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 20:59, Andy Wingo <wi...@pobox.com> wrote: > > Hi Tomeu, > > > > On Thu 14 Jan 2010 16:29, Tomeu Vizoso <to...@sugarlabs.org> writes: > > > >> Pygi is still far away from being an usable replacement of static > >> bindings, at the current development rate. > > > > Why is that? Is the gobject-inspection metadata not expressive enough, > > or does pygi not implement all that gobject-introspection can express? > > Pygi is incomplete, I don't think there is still an enormous amount of > work to be done, but there's almost zero people with time to work on > it currently. If there's interest, I can add a TODO list to the wiki. > > As far as I know, g-i has everything we need now. > > Regards, > > Tomeu > > > Just curious, > > > > Andy > > -- > > http://wingolog.org/ > > > > > _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list