Tim Janik wrote: > On Sat, 9 Dec 2006, Bill Haneman wrote: > >> Hi All; >> >> As I understand it, the proposal below would probably break gail >> unless/until we roll it into gtk+. > > can you please elaborate why this should be the case? > basically, the proprosal is about exchanging widget types. My understanding is that the pluggable type system would allow for alternate implementations for a given GType.
If that is the case, then the implementation code for, say, a GtkTreeView might differ in a 'pluggable' environment from the stock gtk+ implementation treeview code. If this is the case, the gail code will almost surely break; this is because, while gail uses public gtk+ API for its support (thus the API would be the same in a pluggable environment), gail does currently depend on implementation/behavior details of stock gtk+ widgets (i.e. order and type of children, perhaps signal emission order, etc.). > as long > as widgets are supported by gail, nothing should break. and if they > aren't, we're simply talking about accessibility TODOs and the > pluggability doesn't introduce any *new* breakage. > > accesibility and pluggability are simply orthogonal. Not sure I agree. But then, perhaps I have the wrong concept of what is actually intended by a 'pluggable' type system. If so, please feel free to enlighten me (on or off-list). Bill > >> Bill > > --- > ciaoTJ _______________________________________________ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
