[Thunar-dev] Unification of Treeview and Sidepanel
Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues
lookkas at gmail.com
Mon May 16 13:30:43 CEST 2005
Brian, I mostly agree with your point about keeping compatibility with
old distros, but I'm slightly concerned about infrastructure. To be
short, why keep "duplicate" (note the quotes) infrastructure, if
efforts are being made to make gtk+ more complete? Why make libexo
growing unnecessarily when there are native widgets in gtk?
IMVHO, instead to make modified xfce-only versions of widgets and
infrastructure, it would be better help the GTK dudes to implement
properly the features they are moving to the toolkit. Less code to
maintain, more consistency (think language bindings), better in the
long run. You can even consider to move libexo stuff to GTK :).
I'd like to hear comments. What do you guys think?
2005/5/13, Brian J. Tarricone <bjt23 at cornell.edu>:
> > For example,
> > 1) GtkCellRenderText, GtkLabel, GtkProgressBar and PangoLayout
> > support for ellipsized text.
> Useful, but not necessary, and libexo can do all this.
> > 3) GtkAboutDialog vs XfceAboutDialog
> We'll continue to use XfceAboutDialog, since it's distinctively Xfce-ish.
> > 4) GLib's GOption API for user defined commandline option parsing.
> This is a shame not to have, but we can either backport it into libexo
> (not that hard), or just use GNU getopt (and include it for systems
> that don't have it).
> > 6) GtkMenuToolButton vs XfceMenuButton
> So? We already have a replacement for it, so we might as well use it.
> > May be then a few widgets could be deprecated in favour of the new
> > GTK ones (e.g. GtkMenuToolButton, GtkAboutDialog).
> I don't really see the need...
> I think the bottom line here is that I still haven't seen a compelling
> need for gtk 2.6 for Thunar.
More information about the Thunar-dev