Re: Mono bindings a blessed dependency? [Was: Tomboy in 2.16]
Elijah Newren wrote: > Should Mono be a valid dependency and C# a blessed language? Talking from a user side here: the most exciting new applications for the GNOME desktop that I saw (and came to love) over the last two years or so are not (at least not solely) implemented in C. To name a few: Banshee, Muine, Tomboy, Beagle, deskbar-applet. As a user I do not care about which programming language is implemented in, and I think that we (the users) would benefit from C# being a "blessed" language within GNOME as it apparently improves the development of GNOME application development (or why were the above mentioned applications not implemented in C?). -- Sebastian Bergmann http://www.sebastian-bergmann.de/ GnuPG Key: 0xB85B5D69 / 27A7 2B14 09E4 98CD 6277 0E5B 6867 C514 B85B 5D69 ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Mono bindings a blessed dependency? [Was: Tomboy in 2.16]
[Andrew responded off list, and got it just right, so I'm forwarding.] On 4/21/06, Andrew Sobala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Alex Graveley wrote: > > > > HELLO?! Check 1-2-3? > > > > The discussion *was* about Tomboy. An small app I wrote that people > > like, and which could benefit from adoption in GNOME. Thanks for > > throwing any chance for productive discussion out the window. > > Running the risk of putting words into other people's mouths, I don't > think that's what Luis meant. > > The question of "Should Tomboy be integrated into the GNOME Desktop" > spawned the question of "Should Mono applications be integrated into the > GNOME Desktop" - and that question shouldn't be answered just with > reference to Tomboy, it should be answered with awareness of the fact > that there is a huge wealth of mono applications out there, and we are > shooting ourselves in the foot if people whine about the implementation > language. But otherwise the conversation would go "Why are we adding a > dependency on Mono for a notes application" - and stop right there. On 4/21/06, Andrew Sobala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Alex Graveley wrote: > > > > HELLO?! Check 1-2-3? > > > > The discussion *was* about Tomboy. An small app I wrote that people > > like, and which could benefit from adoption in GNOME. Thanks for > > throwing any chance for productive discussion out the window. > > Running the risk of putting words into other people's mouths, I don't > think that's what Luis meant. > > The question of "Should Tomboy be integrated into the GNOME Desktop" > spawned the question of "Should Mono applications be integrated into the > GNOME Desktop" - and that question shouldn't be answered just with > reference to Tomboy, it should be answered with awareness of the fact > that there is a huge wealth of mono applications out there, and we are > shooting ourselves in the foot if people whine about the implementation > language. But otherwise the conversation would go "Why are we adding a > dependency on Mono for a notes application" - and stop right there. Yeah, that's exactly what I meant. Alex, if you read Murray's response, it was of the form 'no tomboy, because no C#, because doing c# just for tomboy is dumb'. That line of logic is what I was trying to stop. Luis ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Mono bindings a blessed dependency? [Was: Tomboy in 2.16]
HELLO?! Check 1-2-3? The discussion *was* about Tomboy. An small app I wrote that people like, and which could benefit from adoption in GNOME. Thanks for throwing any chance for productive discussion out the window. Maybe I'll wait until 2.20 to propose again. Maybe... -Alex Luis Villa wrote: On 4/20/06, Murray Cumming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Thu, 2006-04-20 at 22:38 +0200, David Neary wrote: Hi, Elijah Newren said: But, a more important question: We currently only allow apps using the python bindings into the desktop. Is this true, or is it just because no-one's ever asked? We've had extensive discussions about it on this list. Python is the only one that almost nobody objects to, and a lot of people would prefer us not to use too many programming languages in the official Desktop modules. But luckily, not everything needs to be in the Desktop. I certainly wouldn't want to add the political, technical, and strategic baggage for just a note taking utility. But lets be honest here. This discussion isn't about tomboy. We need built in search; we're getting some of our best reviews in ages because of our (currently optional) built in search: http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1948842,00.asp?kc=EWRSS03129TX1K616 If this discussion is about any app in particular (it probably shouldn't be, but it probably will be) this discussion is really about beagle, not tomboy. Luis (why, what a big pink elephant you have in your pants^Wroom) ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Mono bindings a blessed dependency? [Was: Tomboy in 2.16]
Hi Shaun, On Fri, 2006-04-21 at 12:38 -0500, Shaun McCance wrote: > On Fri, 2006-04-21 at 18:26 +0200, Emmanuele Bassi wrote: > > On Fri, 2006-04-21 at 17:15 +0100, Jamie McCracken wrote: > > > We need namespaces/classes for metadata as raw DC is > > > not appropriate and hierarchical rdf types are very inelegant (and > > > unmanageable in tracker's DB). > > > > You are making a common mistake - I did that too, so a word of advice: > > you don't write the spec to adapt it to the implementation; it's really > > the other way around. Otherwise, you'll have the perfect implementation, > > but other will have to pass through hell. Remember that fixing a bad > > implementation is simple - fixing a bad spec is really not. > > > > You must design the spec *without* the implementation in mind. It's > > harder: yes. It creates a *useful* spec: yes. > > Specifications without reference implementations suck. This we agree: a reference implementation must be done in parallel with the spec design. Also, avoiding spec design by committee is a plus. But, as you say: > If I ran a standards body, I would demand > two distinct and interoperable reference implementations and a > complete set of conformance tests before I'd ever let anything > be called a standard. This means that the spec must not be designed by the implementation. Otherwise every whim of a library, or a language, used by the implementation will end up in the spec itself. What if I change the dependency chain or the language: does this make the spec's implementation-induced limitations disappear, thus breaking every other implementation? Ciao, Emmanuele. -- Emmanuele Bassi - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Log: http://log.emmanuelebassi.net ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Mono bindings a blessed dependency? [Was: Tomboy in 2.16]
On Fri, 2006-04-21 at 18:26 +0200, Emmanuele Bassi wrote: > On Fri, 2006-04-21 at 17:15 +0100, Jamie McCracken wrote: > > We need namespaces/classes for metadata as raw DC is > > not appropriate and hierarchical rdf types are very inelegant (and > > unmanageable in tracker's DB). > > You are making a common mistake - I did that too, so a word of advice: > you don't write the spec to adapt it to the implementation; it's really > the other way around. Otherwise, you'll have the perfect implementation, > but other will have to pass through hell. Remember that fixing a bad > implementation is simple - fixing a bad spec is really not. > > You must design the spec *without* the implementation in mind. It's > harder: yes. It creates a *useful* spec: yes. The W3C XMl Schema specification was designed as you propose, and a lot of people think it's an unmanageable mess. Daniel Veillard has all but given up on implementing them in libxml2, and Daniel is a Damn Fine Programmer who knows his shit with respect to XML. On the flip side, the RELAX NG specification was designed from the reference implementation. It doesn't have all the whiz-bang modeling features of W3C XML Schema, but for validation, it just can't be beat. Specifications without reference implementations suck. You just never know all the problems you're going to encounter until you hammer out the code. If I ran a standards body, I would demand two distinct and interoperable reference implementations and a complete set of conformance tests before I'd ever let anything be called a standard. -- Shaun ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Mono bindings a blessed dependency? [Was: Tomboy in 2.16]
On Fri, 2006-04-21 at 07:59 -0500, Travis Watkins wrote: > On 4/21/06, Steve Frécinaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > As soon as you include it in the desktop, the developpers won't consider > > the "optional" word anymore : any gnome application can depend on any > > part of the desktop, since every gnome installation should provide the > > whole package set... > > That's what the clue-by-four is for :) What? That's why we have a desktop release. The desktop is greater than the sum of its parts, because we're able to leverage other technologies in the desktop. Yelp already has enough of an #ifdef mess because Beagle has to be an optional dependency. If I had to #ifdef every last desktop technology, I probably wouldn't even bother using them. (This, by the way, is why many ISDs aren't playing nice: It's just too much work to do the "if (gnome) ... else if (kde) ..." crap for two dozen different desktop features.) -- Shaun ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Mono bindings a blessed dependency? [Was: Tomboy in 2.16]
Ross Burton wrote: On Fri, 2006-04-21 at 17:58 +0200, Emmanuele Bassi wrote: [1] Dublin Core anyone? Timestamps not using ISO8601 but something that is similar-yet-not-quite-enough? Now look what's happened. My main gripes are: 1) no generic way to say "title". Thats true - Im not sure why thats needed though. You can search specifc metadata or a full text search on all fields There is File.Description, Audio.Title, Audio.Comment, Doc.Title, Doc.Subject, Doc.Comments, Image.Title, Image.Comments and Image.Description. What if my generic interface just wants to show the title of a result? Ditto for many other fields: Doc.Keywords, Image.Keywords but no Audio.Keywords. The interface is class based so all files have File.* attributes. File.Keywords would be user definable emblems, leaftag tags etc Doc.Keywords are an official embedded OOO/Ms word metadata field Likewise with Image.Keywords. Audio.Keywords is not a metadata (they inherit the File.Keywords) The class namespace is supposed to differentiate them but I take it you are saying thats not sufficient? 2) as I mentioned in my other mail, until yesterday the File.* date fields were missing their timezone. As Emmanuele points out are now almost but not quite ISO 8601, apart from Audio.Date, Audio.LastPlay, Doc.Created and Image.Date which still don't have a timezone, and really should. okay will fix 3) "For images, most support the EXIF standard and so a subset of this makes up part of this specification.". Why a subset? What about the rest of the EXIF metadata? My photos contain the exposure time and focal length, so why can't I use tracker to search for all long exposure photos? Point taken! (I know Im proably wrong thinking the rest were just junk!) Considering Tracker has a RDF Query API, I'm shocked that it doesn't use a RDF triple store internally. You can create a MySQL-based triple store using librdf in a few lines of Python, which reduces the effort in writing a beagle/tracker clone to the metadata extraction libraries, and nice front-end APIs. Arbitrary metadata can be added without any extra work, and it would build on the years of work by semantic web people. I know that but the reason tracker is so fast is it has a highly tuned DB architecture. Technically Beagle's lucene should be faster than mysql's full text indexing but I use a few optimisations in my design to ensure that full text searches are super fast (I wont bore you with the details!) We use a custom RDF parser because its dead easy to map RDF query to SQL and I can add extensions to my RDF Query parser to support full text searches and other stuff. Using an official rdf lib would negate the above and force a fixed structure on the DB. So I went for speed and flexibility. Rant over. The first person to say "stop energy" gets their username in a SJ blacklist. :) Nothing can stop me now! -- Mr Jamie McCracken http://jamiemcc.livejournal.com/ ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Mono bindings a blessed dependency? [Was: Tomboy in 2.16]
Hi, On Fri, 2006-04-21 at 17:15 +0100, Jamie McCracken wrote: > > In which sense it's a "fd.o project"? Considering that: > > > > * the spec upon which is based is in on the wiki, in the "even less > > than a draft" section, and it can be edited by anyone with an > > account[1]; > > * I didn't see any endorsement by anyone - except by the projects > > for which Jamie did wrote a patch for; > > * I don't see anyone except Jamie working on it, making Tracker > > _and_ the spec as the next candidates to the "son of egg-recent" > > competition[2]; > > Deskbar developer Mikkel Kamstrup (http://kamstrup.livejournal.com/) > wrote the deskbar handler and has committed himself to write a PYGTK GUI > for tracker. Glad to hear that. > > [1] Dublin Core anyone? Timestamps not using ISO8601 but something that > > is similar-yet-not-quite-enough? > > should be ISO8601. No, it's not. It's something similar, but doesn't validate as such; and ISO8601 has more than one format for dates. An implementation of a ISO8601 parser is included in libsoup and inside GLib 2.11; you should really look at that. Also, the usage of timestamp is inconsistent at best: the File.* namespace uses timezones, while the Audio.* and Image.* do not. > We need namespaces/classes for metadata as raw DC is > not appropriate and hierarchical rdf types are very inelegant (and > unmanageable in tracker's DB). You are making a common mistake - I did that too, so a word of advice: you don't write the spec to adapt it to the implementation; it's really the other way around. Otherwise, you'll have the perfect implementation, but other will have to pass through hell. Remember that fixing a bad implementation is simple - fixing a bad spec is really not. You must design the spec *without* the implementation in mind. It's harder: yes. It creates a *useful* spec: yes. Ciao, Emmanuele. -- Emmanuele Bassi - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Log: http://log.emmanuelebassi.net ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Mono bindings a blessed dependency? [Was: Tomboy in 2.16]
On Fri, 2006-04-21 at 17:58 +0200, Emmanuele Bassi wrote: > [1] Dublin Core anyone? Timestamps not using ISO8601 but something that > is similar-yet-not-quite-enough? Now look what's happened. My main gripes are: 1) no generic way to say "title". There is File.Description, Audio.Title, Audio.Comment, Doc.Title, Doc.Subject, Doc.Comments, Image.Title, Image.Comments and Image.Description. What if my generic interface just wants to show the title of a result? Ditto for many other fields: Doc.Keywords, Image.Keywords but no Audio.Keywords. 2) as I mentioned in my other mail, until yesterday the File.* date fields were missing their timezone. As Emmanuele points out are now almost but not quite ISO 8601, apart from Audio.Date, Audio.LastPlay, Doc.Created and Image.Date which still don't have a timezone, and really should. 3) "For images, most support the EXIF standard and so a subset of this makes up part of this specification.". Why a subset? What about the rest of the EXIF metadata? My photos contain the exposure time and focal length, so why can't I use tracker to search for all long exposure photos? Considering Tracker has a RDF Query API, I'm shocked that it doesn't use a RDF triple store internally. You can create a MySQL-based triple store using librdf in a few lines of Python, which reduces the effort in writing a beagle/tracker clone to the metadata extraction libraries, and nice front-end APIs. Arbitrary metadata can be added without any extra work, and it would build on the years of work by semantic web people. Rant over. The first person to say "stop energy" gets their username in a SJ blacklist. :) Ross -- Ross Burton mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] www: http://www.burtonini.com./ PGP Fingerprint: 1A21 F5B0 D8D0 CFE3 81D4 E25A 2D09 E447 D0B4 33DF signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Mono bindings a blessed dependency? [Was: Tomboy in 2.16]
Emmanuele Bassi wrote: Hi, On Fri, 2006-04-21 at 09:21 +0200, Luca Ferretti wrote: Oh, it's a freedesktop project. In which sense it's a "fd.o project"? Considering that: * the spec upon which is based is in on the wiki, in the "even less than a draft" section, and it can be edited by anyone with an account[1]; * I didn't see any endorsement by anyone - except by the projects for which Jamie did wrote a patch for; * I don't see anyone except Jamie working on it, making Tracker _and_ the spec as the next candidates to the "son of egg-recent" competition[2]; Deskbar developer Mikkel Kamstrup (http://kamstrup.livejournal.com/) wrote the deskbar handler and has committed himself to write a PYGTK GUI for tracker. Its fdo because it contains no gnome dependencies so its "in-theory" fdo complaint and it uses fdo technologies like Dbus, XDGMime etc. I like the idea of a common spec for file meta-data, and the idea of a C-based indexer, especially for low-entry machines; yet, I don't think that the current spec and Tracker are mature enough for the job. Thats true - its still early days for tracker but we are getting there. There are a tremendous amount of things we can do with tracker. I am not asking for tracker to go into gnome just yet as there is a more stuff to be done but when I do it will be abstracted with Beagle in some way so nobody has to give up their preferred indexer. Its unacceptable for either project to just die in favour of the other and thats why I am against having either a Beagle only solution or a tracker only solution in Gnome (I have lots of comments in my email box from satisfied users and I have a moral duty to support and protect them and ensure they get integration with gnome). +++ [1] Dublin Core anyone? Timestamps not using ISO8601 but something that is similar-yet-not-quite-enough? should be ISO8601. We need namespaces/classes for metadata as raw DC is not appropriate and hierarchical rdf types are very inelegant (and unmanageable in tracker's DB). [2] What if Jamie grows tired? What if we stay with the same spec and code lying around for three years? Is there some form of commitment for the next years? Yes - I have a 1ghz p4 notepad with 256MB RAM so tracker is the only viable system that works on it so I'm committed to maintaining it. But if anyone else wants to join in the fun then let me know. -- Mr Jamie McCracken http://jamiemcc.livejournal.com/ ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Mono bindings a blessed dependency? [Was: Tomboy in 2.16]
Hi, On Fri, 2006-04-21 at 09:21 +0200, Luca Ferretti wrote: > Oh, it's a freedesktop project. In which sense it's a "fd.o project"? Considering that: * the spec upon which is based is in on the wiki, in the "even less than a draft" section, and it can be edited by anyone with an account[1]; * I didn't see any endorsement by anyone - except by the projects for which Jamie did wrote a patch for; * I don't see anyone except Jamie working on it, making Tracker _and_ the spec as the next candidates to the "son of egg-recent" competition[2]; I like the idea of a common spec for file meta-data, and the idea of a C-based indexer, especially for low-entry machines; yet, I don't think that the current spec and Tracker are mature enough for the job. +++ [1] Dublin Core anyone? Timestamps not using ISO8601 but something that is similar-yet-not-quite-enough? [2] What if Jamie grows tired? What if we stay with the same spec and code lying around for three years? Is there some form of commitment for the next years? Ciao, Emmanuele. -- Emmanuele Bassi - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Log: http://log.emmanuelebassi.net ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Mono bindings a blessed dependency? [Was: Tomboy in 2.16]
Hi, On Fri, 2006-04-21 at 09:21 +0200, Luca Ferretti wrote: > Oh, it's a freedesktop project. This isn't a dig on tracker, but I don't really agree with the implication of this statement. Putting something up on freedesktop.org doesn't automatically bless it in some utopian cross desktop way. At this point, Beagle has as many KDE frontends as GNOME ones, and it indexes KMail mail, Konqueror History, Akregator RSS feeds, and Kopete instant messenger logs. Making Beagle as cross-desktop friendly as possible has always been a priority for us. I've tried to be very pragmatic about it: let's get Beagle usable by as many people as possible. Joe ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Mono bindings a blessed dependency? [Was: Tomboy in 2.16]
Hi, On Thu, 2006-04-20 at 22:43 +0100, Jamie McCracken wrote: > well there's a huge problem with that - the memory usage of beagle would > mean only high end machines would be able to run it. Tracker gives us a > better alternative IMHO for integrated search as it rocks for *everyone* > and not just the few. I don't consider this an insurmountable problem. Working on low-end machines is definitely a goal, we just need to work to get to that point. Any help people can provide in this endeavor is appreciated. Joe ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Mono bindings a blessed dependency? [Was: Tomboy in 2.16]
On 4/21/06, Steve Frécinaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As soon as you include it in the desktop, the developpers won't consider > the "optional" word anymore : any gnome application can depend on any > part of the desktop, since every gnome installation should provide the > whole package set... That's what the clue-by-four is for :) -- Travis Watkins http://www.realistanew.com ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Mono bindings a blessed dependency? [Was: Tomboy in 2.16]
Rodrigo Moya wrote: I think we should allow everything written with a blessed binding, provided that code is optional (like nautilus+beagle integration, for instance), so that we don't force 3rd parties to use them if they don't want to. As soon as you include it in the desktop, the developpers won't consider the "optional" word anymore : any gnome application can depend on any part of the desktop, since every gnome installation should provide the whole package set... ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Mono bindings a blessed dependency? [Was: Tomboy in 2.16]
On 21 Apr 2006, at 08:22, Steve Frécinaux wrote: Jamie McCracken wrote: But lets be honest here. This discussion isn't about tomboy. We need built in search; we're getting some of our best reviews in ages because of our (currently optional) built in search: well there's a huge problem with that - the memory usage of beagle would mean only high end machines would be able to run it. Tracker gives us a better alternative IMHO for integrated search as it rocks for *everyone* and not just the few. I agree with it. I haven't tested tracker, but beagle is just not usable here (not enough memory, etc.). FWIW, beagle also brings my 1.5GHz, 1Gb PowerBook G4 to its knees on a regular basis :/ Cheeri, Calum. -- CALUM BENSON, Usability Engineer Sun Microsystems Ireland mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Java Desktop System Team http://blogs.sun.com/calum +353 1 819 9771 Any opinions are personal and not necessarily those of Sun Microsystems ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Mono bindings a blessed dependency? [Was: Tomboy in 2.16]
Behdad Esfahbod wrote: On Fri, 21 Apr 2006, Jamie McCracken wrote: Definitely not - that is unmanageable and unfair. If something is optional it means there are alternatives and one alternative should not block another (as then an inferior alternative could block a vastly superior alternative getting into the desktop as would be the case with beagle and Tracker) It's also unacceptable to ask everybody not to add beagle support simply because you and only you think Tracker is a vastly superior solution. This claim was never proved, nor Tracker is integrated in any core GNOME application that I know of. I am not asking anyone to not add beagle support - indeed I am adding optional beagle support to tracker so that tracker can be proposed and can be used with either its internal indexer or beagle's indexer (which I think is a fairer option than having Beagle only or Tracker only). Tracker has support in Nautilus and Deskbar - please make your own judgements from its performance in those apps. (apologies if I was sounding arrogant wrt tracker) -- Mr Jamie McCracken http://jamiemcc.livejournal.com/ ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Mono bindings a blessed dependency? [Was: Tomboy in 2.16]
On Fri, 2006-04-21 at 11:17 +0100, Jamie McCracken wrote: > Rodrigo Moya wrote: > > On Thu, 2006-04-20 at 23:00 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote: > There are other languages bindings > in our release set, but none of them have been similarly blessed. > Assuming Gtk# is added to the bindings set, should it be a language > core apps can use? > >>> That's an interesting question - put another way, should the desktop > >>> depend on the bindings? I certainly wouldn't have a problem with that - > >>> although making GNOME depend on Mono is an issue which would give me > >>> more pause than making it depend on gtkmm. > >> The desktop already depends on the bindings since we have some python > >> love in the desktop :-) The question is, do we accept all languages in > >> the desktop, or just a small selection of what's available in the > >> bindings (and which selection?). > >> > > I think we should allow everything written with a blessed binding, > > provided that code is optional (like nautilus+beagle integration, for > > instance), so that we don't force 3rd parties to use them if they don't > > want to. > > Definitely not - that is unmanageable and unfair. > > If something is optional it means there are alternatives and one > alternative should not block another (as then an inferior alternative > could block a vastly superior alternative getting into the desktop as > would be the case with beagle and Tracker) > > And if you allow all alternatives in you end up with a mess! > when I mean optional, I'm not really talking about having 'n' alternatives, but about having core modules compilable without that dependency, when possible -- Rodrigo Moya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Mono bindings a blessed dependency? [Was: Tomboy in 2.16]
On Fri, 21 Apr 2006, Jamie McCracken wrote: > Definitely not - that is unmanageable and unfair. > > If something is optional it means there are alternatives and one > alternative should not block another (as then an inferior alternative > could block a vastly superior alternative getting into the desktop as > would be the case with beagle and Tracker) It's also unacceptable to ask everybody not to add beagle support simply because you and only you think Tracker is a vastly superior solution. This claim was never proved, nor Tracker is integrated in any core GNOME application that I know of. > And if you allow all alternatives in you end up with a mess! --behdad http://behdad.org/ "Commandment Three says Do Not Kill, Amendment Two says Blood Will Spill" -- Dan Bern, "New American Language" ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Mono bindings a blessed dependency? [Was: Tomboy in 2.16]
Rodrigo Moya wrote: On Thu, 2006-04-20 at 23:00 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote: There are other languages bindings in our release set, but none of them have been similarly blessed. Assuming Gtk# is added to the bindings set, should it be a language core apps can use? That's an interesting question - put another way, should the desktop depend on the bindings? I certainly wouldn't have a problem with that - although making GNOME depend on Mono is an issue which would give me more pause than making it depend on gtkmm. The desktop already depends on the bindings since we have some python love in the desktop :-) The question is, do we accept all languages in the desktop, or just a small selection of what's available in the bindings (and which selection?). I think we should allow everything written with a blessed binding, provided that code is optional (like nautilus+beagle integration, for instance), so that we don't force 3rd parties to use them if they don't want to. Definitely not - that is unmanageable and unfair. If something is optional it means there are alternatives and one alternative should not block another (as then an inferior alternative could block a vastly superior alternative getting into the desktop as would be the case with beagle and Tracker) And if you allow all alternatives in you end up with a mess! -- Mr Jamie McCracken http://jamiemcc.livejournal.com/ ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Mono bindings a blessed dependency? [Was: Tomboy in 2.16]
Murray Cumming wrote: On Fri, 2006-04-21 at 09:22 +0200, Steve Frécinaux wrote: [snip] (Also consider there is a huge blow of fresh air and optimism around the new D compiler which may bring us a compiled language with cool high level features, speeding up development and so on) [snip] We are not going to solve the yet-another-language problem with yet another language. That's basically what I wanted to highlight : don't go too fast, be circumspect :-) ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Mono bindings a blessed dependency? [Was: Tomboy in 2.16]
On Fri, 2006-04-21 at 09:22 +0200, Steve Frécinaux wrote: [snip] > (Also > consider there is a huge blow of fresh air and optimism around the new D > compiler which may bring us a compiled language with cool high level > features, speeding up development and so on) [snip] We are not going to solve the yet-another-language problem with yet another language. -- Murray Cumming [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.murrayc.com www.openismus.com ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Mono bindings a blessed dependency? [Was: Tomboy in 2.16]
Jamie McCracken wrote: But lets be honest here. This discussion isn't about tomboy. We need built in search; we're getting some of our best reviews in ages because of our (currently optional) built in search: well there's a huge problem with that - the memory usage of beagle would mean only high end machines would be able to run it. Tracker gives us a better alternative IMHO for integrated search as it rocks for *everyone* and not just the few. I agree with it. I haven't tested tracker, but beagle is just not usable here (not enough memory, etc.). And the simple fact tracker exists demonstrate we don't *need* C# to get this kind of cool features. (Also consider there is a huge blow of fresh air and optimism around the new D compiler which may bring us a compiled language with cool high level features, speeding up development and so on) My advice would be to be careful before accepting another blessed managed language. Some apps don't need to be in the default desktop distribution to be used by everyone, and it's going to be difficult to remove such a blessing. Also think that mono is still controversial, as java is, and so maybe it's a bit early to include it in the desktop. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Mono bindings a blessed dependency? [Was: Tomboy in 2.16]
Il giorno gio, 20/04/2006 alle 22.43 +0100, Jamie McCracken ha scritto: > Luis Villa wrote: > > But lets be honest here. This discussion isn't about tomboy. We need > > built in search; we're getting some of our best reviews in ages > > because of our (currently optional) built in search: > > well there's a huge problem with that - the memory usage of beagle would > mean only high end machines would be able to run it. Tracker gives us a > better alternative IMHO for integrated search as it rocks for *everyone* > and not just the few. > I agree. Beagle is good, but Tracker is divine. It needs only plain C and 5~8 MB of RAM, and it's really really fast (the nautilus frontend is 2x faster listing search results). Oh, it's a freedesktop project. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Mono bindings a blessed dependency? [Was: Tomboy in 2.16]
Luis Villa wrote: On 4/20/06, Glynn Foster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Thu, 2006-04-20 at 22:28 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote: Le jeudi 20 avril 2006 à 14:19 -0600, Elijah Newren a écrit : So, new question we have to address before addressing Alex's proposal: Should Mono be a valid dependency and C# a blessed language? I believe the answer should be yes. We're starting to see a lot of projects in C#, and I think all the major distributions are shipping mono now. Ahem, not quite true [1]. Neither JDS nor RHEL are yet. No idea if RHEL will. mono is now in fedora core, fedora core being the basis of rhel, there is a good chance you will see it in rhel 5 michael ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Mono bindings a blessed dependency? [Was: Tomboy in 2.16]
> My personal opinion is that we should try to prevent having too many > blessed languages to prevent maintainence problems (*cough* sawfish > *cough*) but that we need to balance that with the number of apps, > their coolness, and the size of the Gnome community behind them (i.e. > likelihood of finding a new maintainer). Not all may agree with those > criteria though... IMHO: If there is a set of well-maintained and mature bindings for a particular language that is needed for a particular cool app that should be in the desktop, then I don't see any problem with including that set of bindings in the desktop. Lets focus on making users life good (cool apps) instead of focusing on making devs life good (less bindings to maintain). Conversively, if there is a set of unmaintained, buggy and underused bindings for a particular language in teh desktop, then I don't see any problem with removing that set of bindings from the desktop. Flexibility rules (and Lisp too!). -- mvh Björn ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Mono bindings a blessed dependency? [Was: Tomboy in 2.16]
On 4/20/06, Glynn Foster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 2006-04-20 at 22:28 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote: > > Le jeudi 20 avril 2006 à 14:19 -0600, Elijah Newren a écrit : > > > So, new question we have to address before addressing Alex's proposal: > > > Should Mono be a valid dependency and C# a blessed language? > > > > I believe the answer should be yes. We're starting to see a lot of > > projects in C#, and I think all the major distributions are shipping > > mono now. > > Ahem, not quite true [1]. Neither JDS nor RHEL are yet. No idea if RHEL will. Luis ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Mono bindings a blessed dependency? [Was: Tomboy in 2.16]
On Thu, 2006-04-20 at 22:28 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote: > Le jeudi 20 avril 2006 à 14:19 -0600, Elijah Newren a écrit : > > So, new question we have to address before addressing Alex's proposal: > > Should Mono be a valid dependency and C# a blessed language? > > I believe the answer should be yes. We're starting to see a lot of > projects in C#, and I think all the major distributions are shipping > mono now. Ahem, not quite true [1]. Glynn [1] although depends on your definition of 'major'. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Mono bindings a blessed dependency? [Was: Tomboy in 2.16]
Luis Villa wrote: On 4/20/06, Murray Cumming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Thu, 2006-04-20 at 22:38 +0200, David Neary wrote: Hi, Elijah Newren said: But, a more important question: We currently only allow apps using the python bindings into the desktop. Is this true, or is it just because no-one's ever asked? We've had extensive discussions about it on this list. Python is the only one that almost nobody objects to, and a lot of people would prefer us not to use too many programming languages in the official Desktop modules. But luckily, not everything needs to be in the Desktop. I certainly wouldn't want to add the political, technical, and strategic baggage for just a note taking utility. But lets be honest here. This discussion isn't about tomboy. We need built in search; we're getting some of our best reviews in ages because of our (currently optional) built in search: well there's a huge problem with that - the memory usage of beagle would mean only high end machines would be able to run it. Tracker gives us a better alternative IMHO for integrated search as it rocks for *everyone* and not just the few. -- Mr Jamie McCracken http://jamiemcc.livejournal.com/ ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Mono bindings a blessed dependency? [Was: Tomboy in 2.16]
Le jeudi 20 avril 2006 à 14:19 -0600, Elijah Newren a écrit : > So, new question we have to address before addressing Alex's proposal: > Should Mono be a valid dependency and C# a blessed language? I believe the answer should be yes. We're starting to see a lot of projects in C#, and I think all the major distributions are shipping mono now. So, we'd just need to get Gtk# in :-) Vincent -- Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Mono bindings a blessed dependency? [Was: Tomboy in 2.16]
On 4/19/06, Vincent Untz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > My main question is about the Gtk# bindings: should we include them in > the bindings set before including an app? Personally, I definitely think that should be a requirement, yes. But, a more important question: We currently only allow apps using the python bindings into the desktop. There are other languages bindings in our release set, but none of them have been similarly blessed. Assuming Gtk# is added to the bindings set, should it be a language core apps can use? My personal opinion is that we should try to prevent having too many blessed languages to prevent maintainence problems (*cough* sawfish *cough*) but that we need to balance that with the number of apps, their coolness, and the size of the Gnome community behind them (i.e. likelihood of finding a new maintainer). Not all may agree with those criteria though... So, new question we have to address before addressing Alex's proposal: Should Mono be a valid dependency and C# a blessed language? ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
