[Thunar-dev] Unification of Treeview and Sidepanel

[Brian J. Tarricone]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
 
Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues wrote:

> 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?

It's not unnecessary if we want to maintain compatibility with gtk
2.4, which I think is worthwhile.

> 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 :).

For the backports, this point is moot.  For stuff like
XfceAboutDialog, we have a distinctive look for our dialog, which is
different from gtk's.  It has nothing to do with a "lack" of
functionality in gtk, it's just that we're different.  As for getting
stuff into gtk itself, I personally don't have the time (or the
interest) to engage in that kind of advocacy.  If someone else wants
to take something like that on, they're more than welcome.

    -brian


>
> I'd like to hear comments. What do you guys think?
>
> Thank you
>
> Lucas
>
> 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.
>>
>> -brian
>
> _______________________________________________ Thunar-dev mailing
> list Thunar-dev at xfce.org
> http://foo-projects.org/mailman/listinfo/thunar-dev
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)
 
iD8DBQFCiNQi6XyW6VEeAnsRAmt8AJwNMi0Gj9Nc4sH7QItq9YJkP4uxbACgmhxC
fOHOxiSuYGHLbHgiB080N5w=
=NgDx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----