OK. I made a patch for GtkArrowAccessible. Do we want to open a bug
to keep all the patches and review them one by one or just commit them
first?
I saw you remove g_return* calls, and also macros like GAIL_IS_IMAGE.
I am not sure why. Are we going to remove all of them from the new code?
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 4:55 AM, Li Yuan liy...@gnome.org wrote:
OK. I made a patch for GtkArrowAccessible. Do we want to open a bug
to keep all the patches and review them one by one or just commit them
first?
I saw you remove g_return* calls, and also macros like GAIL_IS_IMAGE.
I am not
I've spent some time this weekend starting to explore how moving gail
implementations into gtk 1-by-1 will work in practice. I didn't get
very far (GtkWidget, GtkContainer and GtkImage), but the exercise
proves very useful for spotting all the things that should be
straightened out in the gail
From: Matthias Clasen matthias.cla...@gmail.com
I've spent some time this weekend starting to explore how moving gail
implementations into gtk 1-by-1 will work in practice. I didn't get
very far (GtkWidget, GtkContainer and GtkImage), but the exercise
proves very useful for spotting all the
I think the plan makes sense. Just one question, what do we get from
port GtkAccessible to use AtkGObjectAccessible?
AtkGObjectAccessible's parent is AtkObject anyway. I thought
AtkGObjectAccessible is designed for objects which are not GtkWidget.
Li
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 11:20 PM, Matthias
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 11:18 PM, Li Yuan liy...@gnome.org wrote:
I think the plan makes sense. Just one question, what do we get from
port GtkAccessible to use AtkGObjectAccessible?
AtkGObjectAccessible's parent is AtkObject anyway. I thought
AtkGObjectAccessible is designed for objects which
From: Li Yuan liy...@gnome.org
I haven't particularly checked.
But if the two are incompatible, they should really take measures to
prevent running them in parallel, like taking a well-known busname...
Well, Mike Gorse or Li Yuan would know the details better. Not sure if
it is really
From: Li Yuan liy...@gnome.org
Implementing a11y interface in the widget itself may require a big change in
atk
as API pointed out. So maybe we can move the gail code into gtk first and do
the
further integration later.
Yes, of course, take into account that I added that bug as part of the
From: Matthias Clasen matthias.cla...@gmail.com
I've spent the last night poring through gail bugs and code, and came
to the conclusion that we need to face the tough reality that the
state of a11y in GTK+ is sadly declining. There were years old patches
in bugzilla which fix pretty obvious
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 10:03 AM, Piñeiro apinhe...@igalia.com wrote:
Although move the gail implementation to gtk has his advantages, why
this would be better that just fix them directly on gail? One of the
big problems here is the lack of resources, so doing the move would
add a extra work
From: Matthias Clasen matthias.cla...@gmail.com
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 10:03 AM, Piñeiro apinhe...@igalia.com wrote:
Although move the gail implementation to gtk has his advantages, why
this would be better that just fix them directly on gail? One of the
big problems here is the lack of
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Piñeiro apinhe...@igalia.com wrote:
Ok, so you are proposing a change more deep that I thought.
You are proposing to forget this proxy approach on the accessibility
support. As far as I understand you are proposing to implement the ATK
interfaces directly on
From: Matthias Clasen matthias.cla...@gmail.com
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Piñeiro apinhe...@igalia.com wrote:
Ok, so you are proposing a change more deep that I thought.
You are proposing to forget this proxy approach on the accessibility
support. As far as I understand you are
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 11:55 AM, Piñeiro apinhe...@igalia.com wrote:
1 of 4 is failing. Could you elaborate why this theorical points have
failed miserably?
In my view, keeping the a11y implementation in their separate module
ghetto is a failure in terms of maintenance, performance, and
On 02/17/2011 11:22 AM, Piñeiro wrote:
You are proposing to forget this proxy approach on the accessibility
support. As far as I understand you are proposing to implement the ATK
interfaces directly on GTK, so instead of having a GTK widget and his
accessible equivalent, just having a GTK
From: Matthias Clasen matthias.cla...@gmail.com
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 11:55 AM, Piñeiro apinhe...@igalia.com wrote:
1 of 4 is failing. Could you elaborate why this theorical points have
failed miserably?
In my view, keeping the a11y implementation in their separate module
ghetto is a
From: Dan Winship d...@gnome.org
On 02/17/2011 11:22 AM, Piñeiro wrote:
You are proposing to forget this proxy approach on the accessibility
support. As far as I understand you are proposing to implement the ATK
interfaces directly on GTK, so instead of having a GTK widget and his
accessible
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 12:23 PM, Piñeiro apinhe...@igalia.com wrote:
So probably we could study that. Anyway, in the same way, right now I
don't see how this would better that the option proposed by Matthias.
Oh, I think having the option of implementing the a11y interface in
the widget
From: Matthias Clasen matthias.cla...@gmail.com
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 12:23 PM, Piñeiro apinhe...@igalia.com wrote:
So probably we could study that. Anyway, in the same way, right now I
don't see how this would better that the option proposed by Matthias.
Oh, I think having the option
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 11:13 PM, Matthias Clasen matthias.cla...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 10:03 AM, Piñeiro apinhe...@igalia.com wrote:
Although move the gail implementation to gtk has his advantages, why
this would be better that just fix them directly on gail? One of
I haven't particularly checked.
But if the two are incompatible, they should really take measures to
prevent running them in parallel, like taking a well-known busname...
Well, Mike Gorse or Li Yuan would know the details better. Not sure if
it is really incompatible, or if it should be
Implementing a11y interface in the widget itself may require a big change in
atk
as API pointed out. So maybe we can move the gail code into gtk first and do
the
further integration later.
Li
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 1:27 AM, Matthias Clasen
matthias.cla...@gmail.comwrote:
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011
22 matches
Mail list logo
