Question about GNOME 3.0 bindings plans
Hi, AFAIK, one of the cornerstone components of GNOME 3 is GObject Introspection. I'd like to know which libraries are supposed to support GObject Introspection. Another question is which bindings/language will be officially endorsed by the GNOME project. Being an outsider to the binding stuff, the information I've found is pretty confusing. For example, the relationship between PyGi/PObject Introspection and PyGTK. Thanks in advance, -- Juanjo Marin ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Question about GNOME 3.0 bindings plans
On Fri, 2011-01-21 at 18:19 +0100, Juanjo Marin wrote: > AFAIK, one of the cornerstone components of GNOME 3 is GObject > Introspection. I'd like to know which libraries are supposed to > support GObject Introspection. http://live.gnome.org/GnomeGoals/AddGObjectIntrospectionSupport has a list, not necessarily up-to-date. > Another question is which bindings/language will be officially endorsed > by the GNOME project. The new, yet-to-release developer.gnome.org will focus on C, C++, Python, Javascript, and Vala. > Being an outsider to the binding stuff, the information I've found is > pretty confusing. For example, the relationship between PyGi/PObject > Introspection and PyGTK. See the header of http://live.gnome.org/PyGTK . HTH, andre -- mailto:ak...@gmx.net | failed http://blogs.gnome.org/aklapper ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Question about GNOME 3.0 bindings plans
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 9:31 AM, Andre Klapper wrote: > On Fri, 2011-01-21 at 18:19 +0100, Juanjo Marin wrote: >> AFAIK, one of the cornerstone components of GNOME 3 is GObject >> Introspection. I'd like to know which libraries are supposed to >> support GObject Introspection. > > http://live.gnome.org/GnomeGoals/AddGObjectIntrospectionSupport has a > list, not necessarily up-to-date. > >> Another question is which bindings/language will be officially endorsed >> by the GNOME project. > > The new, yet-to-release developer.gnome.org will focus on C, C++, > Python, Javascript, and Vala. Is C# not a focus of the site because the bindings are behind, because of lack of volunteers to help, or for some other reason? Sandy ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Question about GNOME 3.0 bindings plans
Thanks for the quick reply On Fri, 2011-01-21 at 18:31 +0100, Andre Klapper wrote: > > AFAIK, one of the cornerstone components of GNOME 3 is GObject > > Introspection. I'd like to know which libraries are supposed to > > support GObject Introspection. > > http://live.gnome.org/GnomeGoals/AddGObjectIntrospectionSupport has a > list, not necessarily up-to-date. OK, so it seems _all_ the GNOME APIs will have GObject Introspection support. > > Another question is which bindings/language will be officially endorsed > > by the GNOME project. > > The new, yet-to-release developer.gnome.org will focus on C, C++, > Python, Javascript, and Vala. So does this mean that all the APIs will have bindings for C++, Python, Javascript and Vala ? [Sorry if this ia a stupid question] Are all these bindings will be gobject introspected bindings ? > > Being an outsider to the binding stuff, the information I've found is > > pretty confusing. For example, the relationship between PyGi/PObject > > Introspection and PyGTK. > > See the header of http://live.gnome.org/PyGTK . OK, so PyGTK is the depecrated binding of the GTK+ library. It has been dropped in favor of PyObject. So... - From http://live.gnome.org/PyGObject I've got it includes the GLib/GObject/GIO Python bindings - http://live.gnome.org/PyGTK means it includes the GTK+ bindings - What about other GNOME stack elements, it is taken by granted you have bindings ? TIA, -- Juanjo Marin ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Proposal: Moving d-d-l to moderated until after GNOME 3 release
On 7 Jan 2011, at 17:47, Maciej Piechotka wrote: > On Fri, 2011-01-07 at 18:37 +0100, Dave Neary wrote: >>> In particular, note the following mailing lists: >>> >>>* gnome-annouce-list - all software announcements >>>* gnome-list - discussions/questions about how to use GNOME > > Does gnome-list cover the design process of user experience? You can use usabil...@gnome.org for user experience design questions -- although it's not actively monitored by every development team, the UX people there can point you in the right direction for any particular queries you have, if they can't answer themselves. Cheeri, Calum. -- CALUM BENSON, Interaction Designer Oracle Corporation Ireland Ltd. mailto:calum.ben...@oracle.com Solaris Desktop Team http://blogs.sun.com/calum +353 1 819 9771 Any opinions are personal and not necessarily those of Oracle Corp. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Question about GNOME 3.0 bindings plans
On Fri, 2011-01-21 at 09:46 -0800, Sandy Armstrong wrote: > On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 9:31 AM, Andre Klapper wrote: > > On Fri, 2011-01-21 at 18:19 +0100, Juanjo Marin wrote: > >> AFAIK, one of the cornerstone components of GNOME 3 is GObject > >> Introspection. I'd like to know which libraries are supposed to > >> support GObject Introspection. > > > > http://live.gnome.org/GnomeGoals/AddGObjectIntrospectionSupport has a > > list, not necessarily up-to-date. > > > >> Another question is which bindings/language will be officially endorsed > >> by the GNOME project. > > > > The new, yet-to-release developer.gnome.org will focus on C, C++, > > Python, Javascript, and Vala. > > Is C# not a focus of the site because the bindings are behind, because > of lack of volunteers to help, or for some other reason? Actually, I think we're somewhat confusingly conflating the focus of developer.gnome.org with what we initially focused on for the developer demo tutorials. We talked about languages at the developer documentation hackfest. We weren't trying to exclude any. We just needed to set priorities. We decided not to focus on C# and Mono only because it seems to already have a healthy developer community of its own. If any C# developers want to port any of the demos, or write new demos, I'm not going to turn down contributions. Same for Java and any other language for which we have reasonably up-to-date bindings. There is the slight issue of tools. We've been writing tutorials assuming you use Anjuta, because using an IDE is a more attractive entry point for new developers. I don't think the Anjuta developers even try to target C# or Java, because there's no point competing with MonoDevelop and Eclipse. So for specific languages, we should probably just have the tutorials use other IDEs. -- Shaun ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Question about GNOME 3.0 bindings plans
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 11:01 AM, Shaun McCance wrote: > On Fri, 2011-01-21 at 09:46 -0800, Sandy Armstrong wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 9:31 AM, Andre Klapper wrote: >> > On Fri, 2011-01-21 at 18:19 +0100, Juanjo Marin wrote: >> >> AFAIK, one of the cornerstone components of GNOME 3 is GObject >> >> Introspection. I'd like to know which libraries are supposed to >> >> support GObject Introspection. >> > >> > http://live.gnome.org/GnomeGoals/AddGObjectIntrospectionSupport has a >> > list, not necessarily up-to-date. >> > >> >> Another question is which bindings/language will be officially endorsed >> >> by the GNOME project. >> > >> > The new, yet-to-release developer.gnome.org will focus on C, C++, >> > Python, Javascript, and Vala. >> >> Is C# not a focus of the site because the bindings are behind, because >> of lack of volunteers to help, or for some other reason? > > Actually, I think we're somewhat confusingly conflating the focus > of developer.gnome.org with what we initially focused on for the > developer demo tutorials. > > We talked about languages at the developer documentation hackfest. > We weren't trying to exclude any. We just needed to set priorities. > We decided not to focus on C# and Mono only because it seems to > already have a healthy developer community of its own. > > If any C# developers want to port any of the demos, or write new > demos, I'm not going to turn down contributions. Same for Java and > any other language for which we have reasonably up-to-date bindings. > > There is the slight issue of tools. We've been writing tutorials > assuming you use Anjuta, because using an IDE is a more attractive > entry point for new developers. I don't think the Anjuta developers > even try to target C# or Java, because there's no point competing > with MonoDevelop and Eclipse. So for specific languages, we should > probably just have the tutorials use other IDEs. That all makes sense to me, thanks! Maybe once the Mono binding guys get their next gen stuff released, some folks in that community will want to contribute a bit to developer.gnome.org. :-) Sandy ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Question about GNOME 3.0 bindings plans
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 1:24 PM, Juanjo Marin wrote: > > OK, so it seems _all_ the GNOME APIs will have GObject Introspection > support. I would say that coverage in the gtk3 stack is "OK" at this point, but we still have outstanding unintrospectable APIs; I think pygobject carries a far number of overrides (and also "backwards compatibility" with pygtk too). For gjs we have just been focusing on the shell basically, and not really heavily promoting external development for a variety of reasons. > So does this mean that all the APIs will have bindings for C++, Python, > Javascript and Vala ? [Sorry if this ia a stupid question] > > Are all these bindings will be gobject introspected bindings ? No; gtkmm doesn't consume introspection as far as I know, and Vala is still using VAPI files. There are various issues with both, the Vala and G-I is more actively communicated on topic, getting closer but it's difficult. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Question about GNOME 3.0 bindings plans
2011/1/21 Sandy Armstrong > On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 11:01 AM, Shaun McCance wrote: > > On Fri, 2011-01-21 at 09:46 -0800, Sandy Armstrong wrote: > >> On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 9:31 AM, Andre Klapper wrote: > >> > On Fri, 2011-01-21 at 18:19 +0100, Juanjo Marin wrote: > >> >> AFAIK, one of the cornerstone components of GNOME 3 is GObject > >> >> Introspection. I'd like to know which libraries are supposed to > >> >> support GObject Introspection. > >> > > >> > http://live.gnome.org/GnomeGoals/AddGObjectIntrospectionSupport has a > >> > list, not necessarily up-to-date. > >> > > >> >> Another question is which bindings/language will be officially > endorsed > >> >> by the GNOME project. > >> > > >> > The new, yet-to-release developer.gnome.org will focus on C, C++, > >> > Python, Javascript, and Vala. > >> > >> Is C# not a focus of the site because the bindings are behind, because > >> of lack of volunteers to help, or for some other reason? > > > > Actually, I think we're somewhat confusingly conflating the focus > > of developer.gnome.org with what we initially focused on for the > > developer demo tutorials. > > > > We talked about languages at the developer documentation hackfest. > > We weren't trying to exclude any. We just needed to set priorities. > > We decided not to focus on C# and Mono only because it seems to > > already have a healthy developer community of its own. > > > > If any C# developers want to port any of the demos, or write new > > demos, I'm not going to turn down contributions. Same for Java and > > any other language for which we have reasonably up-to-date bindings. > > > > There is the slight issue of tools. We've been writing tutorials > > assuming you use Anjuta, because using an IDE is a more attractive > > entry point for new developers. I don't think the Anjuta developers > > even try to target C# or Java, because there's no point competing > > with MonoDevelop and Eclipse. So for specific languages, we should > > probably just have the tutorials use other IDEs. > > That all makes sense to me, thanks! Maybe once the Mono binding guys > get their next gen stuff released, some folks in that community will > want to contribute a bit to developer.gnome.org. :-) Hopefully we will have something to show after the post FOSDEM 2011 hackfest targeting GObject-Introspection for .NET. http://live.gnome.org/GNOME%2BMonoHackfest2010 Interested parties are most welcome. - David ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Question about GNOME 3.0 bindings plans
On Fri, 2011-01-21 at 14:01 -0500, Shaun McCance wrote: > On Fri, 2011-01-21 at 09:46 -0800, Sandy Armstrong wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 9:31 AM, Andre Klapper wrote: > > > The new, yet-to-release developer.gnome.org will focus on C, C++, > > > Python, Javascript, and Vala. > > > > Is C# not a focus of the site because the bindings are behind, because > > of lack of volunteers to help, or for some other reason? > > Actually, I think we're somewhat confusingly conflating the focus > of developer.gnome.org with what we initially focused on for the > developer demo tutorials. Uhm, I refered to *tutorials* without writing so, hence my initial posting was extremely misleading. I am sorry for that. andre -- mailto:ak...@gmx.net | failed http://blogs.gnome.org/aklapper ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Question about GNOME 3.0 bindings plans
On Fri, 2011-01-21 at 14:16 -0500, Colin Walters wrote: > On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 1:24 PM, Juanjo Marin wrote: > > Are all these bindings will be gobject introspected bindings ? > > No; gtkmm doesn't consume introspection as far as I know, and Vala is still > using VAPI files. There are various issues with both, the Vala and G-I > is more actively communicated on topic, getting closer but it's difficult. I don't think that's true any more. Totem has Vala plugins support[1] through Totem's own G-I bindings, and libpeas. So things work as you expect without any extra work. [1]: And Python, and Javascript ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Question about GNOME 3.0 bindings plans
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 4:03 PM, Bastien Nocera wrote: > On Fri, 2011-01-21 at 14:16 -0500, Colin Walters wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 1:24 PM, Juanjo Marin wrote: > >> > Are all these bindings will be gobject introspected bindings ? >> >> No; gtkmm doesn't consume introspection as far as I know, and Vala is still >> using VAPI files. There are various issues with both, the Vala and G-I >> is more actively communicated on topic, getting closer but it's difficult. > > I don't think that's true any more. Totem has Vala plugins support[1] > through Totem's own G-I bindings, and libpeas. So things work as you > expect without any extra work. Yes, I needed to be more precise. We're mostly OK on the area of doing .h -> .gir -> .vapi. The problem area is more libraries written in Vala with the full range of features that Vala has (nested namespaces, generic container types, etc. etc.), and thus going the reverse direction. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Question about GNOME 3.0 bindings plans
Hi! > No; gtkmm doesn't consume introspection as far as I know, and Vala is still > using VAPI files. There are various issues with both, the Vala and G-I > is more actively communicated on topic, getting closer but it's difficult. Speaking of gtkmm, gobject-introspection isn't that interesting as C++ is no dynamic language. It might be used to automate some of the binding generation in the future but C++ often has features that lead to improved APIs that differ significantly from the C API so there is no real mapping between the two. Still the C++ bindings are usually in a good shape and that doesn't depend on introspection in any way. Regards, Johannes ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
