Are Out-of-Tree Widgets Second-Class Citizens?

2009-09-28 Thread Morten Welinder
A long time ago GTK+ was a collection of widgets. If you did not like what you had, you could grab the source of one of the widgets and change it to do whatever you needed it to do. This is increasing no longer the case -- in-tree Gtk+ are now special and programmed using a different API than out

Re: Are Out-of-Tree Widgets Second-Class Citizens?

2009-09-28 Thread Allin Cottrell
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009, Morten Welinder wrote: > A long time ago GTK+ was a collection of widgets. If you did > not like what you had, you could grab the source of one of the > widgets and change it to do whatever you needed it to do. > > This is increasing no longer the case -- in-tree Gtk+ are no

Re: Are Out-of-Tree Widgets Second-Class Citizens?

2009-09-28 Thread Brian J. Tarricone
On 09/28/2009 06:11 PM, Allin Cottrell wrote: > I'm not sure if the solution Morten advocates -- namely, applying > the GSEAL principle internally -- is the best one, although maybe > it is. It's not even necessary. Gtk can access struct members directly if desired (for performance reasons, or w

Re: Are Out-of-Tree Widgets Second-Class Citizens?

2009-09-29 Thread Tristan Van Berkom
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 9:36 PM, Brian J. Tarricone wrote: > On 09/28/2009 06:11 PM, Allin Cottrell wrote: > >> I'm not sure if the solution Morten advocates -- namely, applying >> the GSEAL principle internally -- is the best one, although maybe >> it is. > > It's not even necessary.  Gtk can acc

Re: Are Out-of-Tree Widgets Second-Class Citizens?

2009-10-01 Thread Cody Russell
On Mon, 2009-09-28 at 15:12 -0400, Morten Welinder wrote: > This is a consequence of the halfway G_SEALing that was done. Insofar > G_SEAL > is a good idea, it should apply to GTK+ itself, i.e., GtkLabel has no > business > messing with the internals of GtkWidget, although obviously it should > ha

Re: Are Out-of-Tree Widgets Second-Class Citizens?

2009-10-02 Thread Allin Cottrell
On Thu, 1 Oct 2009, Cody Russell wrote: > On Mon, 2009-09-28 at 15:12 -0400, Morten Welinder wrote: > > This is a consequence of the halfway G_SEALing that was done. > > Insofar G_SEAL is a good idea, it should apply to GTK+ itself, > > i.e., GtkLabel has no business messing with the internals of

Re: Are Out-of-Tree Widgets Second-Class Citizens?

2009-10-02 Thread Brian J. Tarricone
On 10/02/2009 07:17 AM, Allin Cottrell wrote: > > On Thu, 1 Oct 2009, Cody Russell wrote: > >> On Mon, 2009-09-28 at 15:12 -0400, Morten Welinder wrote: >>> This is a consequence of the halfway G_SEALing that was done. >>> Insofar G_SEAL is a good idea, it should apply to GTK+ itself, >>> i.e., G

Re: Are Out-of-Tree Widgets Second-Class Citizens?

2009-10-02 Thread Paul Davis
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 1:53 PM, Brian J. Tarricone wrote: > On 10/02/2009 07:17 AM, Allin Cottrell wrote: >> These two responses (Cody's and Brian's) don't jive. Any more >> clarification available? Thanks. > > Sure they do...  Cody said apps will have to use public APIs instead of > accessing st

Re: Are Out-of-Tree Widgets Second-Class Citizens?

2009-10-02 Thread Brian J. Tarricone
On 10/02/2009 12:27 PM, Paul Davis wrote: > On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 1:53 PM, Brian J. Tarricone wrote: >> On 10/02/2009 07:17 AM, Allin Cottrell wrote: > >>> These two responses (Cody's and Brian's) don't jive. Any more >>> clarification available? Thanks. >> >> Sure they do... Cody said apps wil

Re: Are Out-of-Tree Widgets Second-Class Citizens?

2009-10-02 Thread Cody Russell
On Fri, 2009-10-02 at 15:27 -0400, Paul Davis wrote: > > Sure they do... Cody said apps will have to use public APIs instead > of > > accessing struct members directly. I just pointed out that some > things > > don't have accessor functions yet, which is a known issue, judging > by > > other repl