On May 16, 2012 2:08 AM, "Bastien Nocera" <had...@hadess.net> wrote: > > On Wed, 2012-05-16 at 01:41 +0800, Justin Wong wrote: > > Sorry for being mad, no offence to u. > > > > First I would say I approve GNOME to integrate with an IMF, and even > > choose one IMF as defualt. > > > > BUT, IMF must be switchable. > > We already mentioned that we want the features to be in the engines from > each framework, if there needs to be multiple engines. Swappable IMFs > just means more unreproduceable bugs, more moving parts so more bugs in > general and a bad out-of-the-box experience. > > > As I have said for several times, provide a interface that IMFs can be > > well integrated with GNOME. > > Whether IMFs or something, you cannot add more options, have more moving > parts and have less bugs. In fact, you'd end up with the bugs from all > the IMFs. > > > There is a solution too satisfy multipul IMFs, but our points' are > > just Ignored , even though Wen Xuetian has said he can prove it with > > code! > > Your points aren't ignored. We already explained why we don't want > multiple IMFs for GNOME. > > > GNOME provide machanism, IMFs provide implementation. > > > > It's not time to discuss WHICH IMF should be integrated, it's time to > > discuss HOW IMF can be integrated. > > > > I know it will not be a easy job, but it's something that should be > > done. > > > > Whichever IMF u now choose as the only IMF for gnome, u are KILLING > > othe IMFs, so do u think other IMFs' developers work worth nothing? > > The other IMFs will likely continue to exist. They will require users to > make changes to their systems to use them (just like right now if you're > not using the default IMF for your distribution), and you won't have > integrated preferences (just like right now). >
That's what I mean "switchable", but I really doubt that, if even clutter has been integrated to one specific IMF. > > PLEASE, calm down, slow down, and discuss about how to provide a > > machanism, and how IMFs can be integrated. > > If we choose to merge integration based on IBus (because of a variety of > reasons), then two things can happen: > - Developers of other Input Frameworks can start creating patches to the > upstream GNOME to provide a better integration than the default choice. > - They choose to start working on the selected IMF because it's the > selected IMF > - They choose to concentrate on other desktops > > In all cases, the implementation will evolve, and the integration will > get better. I don't want to have the choice between 2 equally badly > integrated IMFs for GNOME. > > Cheers >
_______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list