Minutes of the gtk+ team IRC meeting - 2010-06-08

2010-06-08 Thread Emmanuele Bassi
• figure out how to make distcheck not touch any files under source control
- distchecking gtk takes so long commits might happen in between
- usually, translator commits
- the distcheck phase touches files under revision control, named *.po
- the Makefile.in.in from glib-gettext is the culprit
- might be good to finally move glib-gettext to upstream gettext and
  switch to that
- needs a list of requirements
- at least, find a way for glib-gettext to not make our lives miserable
  by default

• how to deal with gtk-requiring libraries, with regards to the API/ABI break
- libraries will have to do an ABI bump to match the ABI bump in gtk
- we need to communicate this on the various venues and remind the maintainers
ACTION: mclasen to draft a mail for gtk-devel-list/desktop-announce

• GApplication and GtkApplication
- merged GApplication in glib
- merged GtkApplication in gtk+
- feedback is coming through Bugzilla
- identified issues:
  + portability (win32 and quartz backend are missing)
  + headless applications
  + platform support (inhibit idle, session management)
  + documentation should be improved (esp. failure conditions)

• review GBinding
- https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=348080
- binds two object properties, uni or bi-directionally
  + optionally with a transformation function
- API idea coming from libexo
- similar implementations in: gimp, evolution, gedit, seahorse
- GObject functionality

• review GObject::thaw-notify
- property notification can be expensive
- when N properties change it requires N signal emissions
- bulk notification can be implemented only by overriding
  dispatch_properties_changed, which is not always possible
- ::thaw-notify is emitted when the notification queue is thawed for the
  last time, and it emits a bulk notification of all the properties in the
  queue
  + thaw-notify is the signal form of ::dispatch_properties_changed()
- naming is not really descriptive
- needs more thought/work

• Editable label: sub-class or class feature+ABI break?
- replaces EelEditableLabel
- a sub-class of GtkLabel was needed to preserve ABI
- gtk+ 3.0 is breaking ABI anyway, so can we fold that into GtkLabel itself?
- more importantly: do we really, really need them?
- feature sets between labels and entries do not match
- worth investigating the pattern of editable/uneditable widgets

• get rid of GtkProgress
- patch wrote by mclasen at: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=620618
- not as hard as thought
- not ABI compatile (for obvious reasons)
- works fine

• deprecation of gtk_quit_add_full() to remove GtkArg
- GtkArg is only used by GtkCallbackMarshal
- GtkCallbackMarshal is only used by one function
- should really be replaced by GCallback

• potential cost of direct access vs. function calls
- sealing means moving away from direct access to public accessor
  and modifier functions even from within gtk+
- public accessors have type and argument checking
- the cost has not been fully benchmarked
- there are possible scenarios for enabling direct access from within
  the gtk+ code base without breaking all the work done with the sealing
- measurement, or even a definition of measurement, should be done first
ACTION: discuss on the mailing list

next meeting: 2010-06-22

ciao,
 Emmanuele.

-- 
W: http://www.emmanuelebassi.name
B: http://blogs.gnome.org/ebassi


___
gtk-devel-list mailing list
gtk-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list


Re: Minutes of the gtk+ team IRC meeting - 2010-06-08

2010-06-08 Thread Emilio Pozuelo Monfort
Hi,

On 09/06/10 00:49, Emmanuele Bassi wrote:
 • how to deal with gtk-requiring libraries, with regards to the API/ABI break
 - libraries will have to do an ABI bump to match the ABI bump in gtk
 - we need to communicate this on the various venues and remind the maintainers
 ACTION: mclasen to draft a mail for gtk-devel-list/desktop-announce

Forgive me if I misunderstood it, but isn't this the sort of thing that would be
avoided if GTK+ used symbol versioning? If so, using it from 3.0 onwards may be
a good idea.

Cheers,
Emilio
___
gtk-devel-list mailing list
gtk-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list


Re: Minutes of the gtk+ team IRC meeting - 2010-06-08

2010-06-08 Thread Havoc Pennington
Hi,

On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 7:06 PM, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort
poch...@gmail.com wrote:
 Hi,

 On 09/06/10 00:49, Emmanuele Bassi wrote:
 • how to deal with gtk-requiring libraries, with regards to the API/ABI break
 - libraries will have to do an ABI bump to match the ABI bump in gtk
 - we need to communicate this on the various venues and remind the 
 maintainers
 ACTION: mclasen to draft a mail for gtk-devel-list/desktop-announce

 Forgive me if I misunderstood it, but isn't this the sort of thing that would 
 be
 avoided if GTK+ used symbol versioning? If so, using it from 3.0 onwards may 
 be
 a good idea.

If you read the recent thread,
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2010-May/msg00088.html

as it points out, symbol versioning only helps with symbols. The ABI
bump would still be required for types, properties, signals, etc.

Havoc
___
gtk-devel-list mailing list
gtk-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list