Re: Boston dates?

2010-08-01 Thread John Palmieri
I should update the page.  Thanks for pointing it out.  I blogged about it a 
month ago - http://www.j5live.com/2010/07/08/boston-summit-update/.  We have 
confirmed rooms at MIT for November 6th-8th which piggybacks the Linux Plumbers 
conference.  Since then there has been some back and forth about the costs they 
later quoted us and the person helping us out assured us that she can get us 
space at little or no cost for those dates (we usually get it gratis).   I 
haven't heard back from her so I haven't made the official announcement.  I'll 
be back in the US on the 3rd and will hopefully be able to nail things down 
soon after.

- "Andrew Cowie"  wrote:

> Hey,
> 
> What are the dates of Boston this year? I assume the usual Canadian
> Thanksgiving / American Columbus Day "second weekend of October"
> weekend
> which would be 8/9/10 Oct — but the BostonSummit page on the wiki
> doesn't say anything about 2010.
> 
> AfC
> Sydney
> 
> -- 
> Andrew Frederick Cowie | Consulting Engineer | Operational Dynamics
> ☏ +61 4 1079 6725 | ✍ +1 646 472 5054 | ♖
> http://www.operationaldynamics.com
> 
> ___
> desktop-devel-list mailing list
> desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

-- 
--
John (J5) Palmieri
Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc.
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: GSoC Proposal: Scripting Framework for Applications

2010-04-08 Thread John Palmieri

- "Colin Walters"  wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 2:56 PM, Shaneeb Kamran 
> wrote:
> 
> > The main benefit of supporting multiple languages is more to the
> users of
> > the application than to its developers. Like I mentioned in my
> previous
> > mails, if a user wants to add a feature to his favorite application
> and he
> > knows only a language, say, ruby while the app requires him to write
> the
> > extension in, say, python then the user is stuck: he has to learn a
> new
> > language just to write a small piece of code.
> 
> We can't support multiple runtimes per process sanely for a variety
> of
> technical reasons; one of those is that multiple GC'd runtimes break
> toggle references useless and lead to memory leaks.  A non-technical
> argument against this is that it fragments the developer base,
> documentation, etc.
> 
> My take is that GNOME apps should pick C + one of JS,Python and move
> on with actually writing your app and fixing bugs, making it
> compelling, etc.

I would have to agree here.  As a project the proposal has merit but the issues 
involved make it a poor candidate for an SoC funded project.  I would much more 
like to see a project which adds scripting (JS or Python) to a number of 
applications in the GNOME stack.  Or one that documented best practices for 
applications exporting plugin hooks.  Those seem to be much more useful once 
the SoC period has ended. SoC should be about improving on existing projects, 
not creating whole new projects because the time allotted isn't really long 
enough to start something from scratch.  For that reason a project should prove 
itself outside of the SoC framework before we consider it for funding.  In 
other words a developer should be enthusiastic enough about a project to 
develop it regardless of funding.
 
--
John (J5) Palmieri
Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc.
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list


Re: GSoC Proposal: Scripting Framework for Applications

2010-04-07 Thread John Palmieri

- "Shaneeb Kamran"  wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 9:24 PM, Johannes Schmid < j...@jsschmid.de >
> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi!
> 
> 
> 
> > I am not entirely sure but my guess is adding support for another
> > language would require modifications to all the applications
> > individually that want its support to be included. As far as I have
> > read (I apologize if I am wrong) GObject-introspection just makes
> > language bindings pretty straightforward but to be able to use a
> > language for scripting requires more than bindings; there are other
> > issues involved for example, mechanism for invoking the script,
> > passing objects, data conversion from the scripting language to the
> > language of the application (usually C\C++), etc.
> 
> That's not true. By adding gobject-introspection you get
> language-bindings for at least JavaScript and Vala out of the box and
> python is planned. There is nothing else to do as the bindings are
> constructed a runtime (vala: compile-time) from the introspection
> files.
> 
> 
> 
> Are the "bindings" the only thing required to properly interface two
> languages together? What about data-type mapping, data marshalling,
> memory management issues, etc? Since we have introspection now, all
> our problems are solved? Correct me if I am wrong but libraries such
> as GJS are meant to handle precisely these issues.
> 
> 
> But that still is not the main concern of the project; these issues
> are supposed to be handled by specific language plugins (GJS would be
> treated as a language plugin). Moreover as you say, JavaScript support
> is out (GJS) and python support will be complete soon as well
> (PyGObject?). Great, any application can now link to these two
> libraries and use two languages. What if someone writes support for a
> third language, say ruby. Your application will need to be modified to
> use that library and add another dependency. Now libraries to add two
> more languages' support, say Java and .NET, are created. So your
> application will need to add yet more (bloat) code, add another two
> dependencies raising the total number of dependencies to four. Now Lua
> supports comes in...
> 
> 
> The cycle continues.
> 
> I perhaps failed to clearly highlight the main goal of the project:
> enable an application to add scripting support, without regard to any
> particular language, i.e. cross-language. Specific languages plugins
> will then be loaded at runtime (read: no static dependency) which will
> handle all the issues mentioned above plus generate "bindings" via
> GObject-introspection as well.
> 
> 
> The project is very much inspired by the Kross scripting framework
> which is available to KDE developers (
> http://www.techbase.kde.org/Kross )

So what GObject Introspection gets you is the ability for bindings that 
understand GObject Introspection to instantly load those modules and use them 
in the language's interpreter.  It doesn't instantly allow any app to load a 
plugin written in any language.  For instance gnome-shell uses the gjs 
interpreter and exports functions and objects through GNOME Introspection.  You 
can't write a python plugin unless the shell decides to embed a python 
interpreter.  Marshalling data isn't an issue here unless you wanted to somehow 
allow different language modules to talk to each other.

Basically what you would be doing is writing a meta interpreter which would 
provide a framework for developers to add plugin support without worrying about 
which interpreter they would be using.  I see a couple of downfalls to this 
approach - specifically security, performance and issues with some languages 
not being supported on one or another system.  I'm also not convinced, without 
a common runtime like .net and given that the client side of the web has 
survived pretty well without the need of multiple languages, it is something we 
wish to encourage.  That being said, the proposal itself has some merit as a 
project.

--
John (J5) Palmieri
Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc.
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list