xfce4-modules / xfce dependencies

[edscott wilson garcia]

On Mon, 2004-01-05 at 05:05, Jasper Huijsmans wrote:
> Hey edscott,
> 
> Is there any reason the xfce4-modules cannot be part of libxfce4util
> and/or libxfcegui4 ?

Yep. There are basically two reasons, to avoid dependencies and the
focus of xfce4-modules. By focus I mean the following;

Both libxfce4util and libxfcegui4 are meant as dynamic libraries, to be
loaded when the program requires a routine from them, but the programmer
has no control on the load/unload part. Once the routine is loaded,
AFAICT, it's stuck in memory until program termination. With a module,
you can load/unload at will. This greater control allows keeping
footprint smaller. It also allows the programmer to know exactly when
such-and-such library is loaded (feature used by xffm-4.1 load symbols
progressively to allow faster startup). 

The mime-icons can require a good amount of memory since it creates a
hash table and icon factory, and if the programmer knows that it will
not be needed any more, it is best unloaded. Like the button to select a
mime icon for xfce4-panel applications. Once the icon is selected, the
path is returned to the panel and there is no reason to keep the
mime-icons module in memory, so it is unloaded and memory returned.


> The only thing I can see is the dependency on libdbh. Olivier, how do
> you feel about adding a libdbh dependency to the libraries? 
> 

Unless Olivier has changed his mind, see:
http://lunar-linux.org/pipermail/xfce4-dev/2003-October/008478.html

> I think, with both xffm and xfcalendar depending on it, it isn't so bad
> to let xfce as a whole depend on it. In fact, I can even imagine it
> becoming part of libxfce4util, but that's another story.

There's also the libxml2 dependency for the modules.

> 
> The reason I'm asking this, is that I like to keep the number of
> packages low. For instance, I wouldn't mind to have an xfce4-libs
> package that aggregates all our libraries. The main reason to not do
> this is to allow separate releases, but I don't really think we will
> have many of those. I do think limiting the number of packages for xfce
> core modules helps packagers and makes it easier for users to install
> xfce.
> 

Ideally, the xfce applications should not strictly depend on
xfce4-modules. They should be able to compile and run without them
(another difference from the basic xfce libraries). The problem
encountered by Moe should not have happened (who said HEAD was stable?)
and does not happen any more.
 
If the packager chooses to include the xfce4-modules, extra features
will be enabled. This includes the select mime-icon button for the panel
and the common history completion combo for xfrun (and others soon to
come).   

Edscott

> Flame away ;-)
> 
> 	Jasper
> 
> PS
> For me personally it doesn't matter much, but I just thought I would
> bring it up for the greater good ;)
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Xfce4-dev mailing list
> Xfce4-dev at xfce.org
> http://lunar-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/xfce4-dev