[Glade-devel] libglade usage

[bighead@users.sourceforge.net]

Hey

Like I said in my mail to a fork of this thread, its might be better to have
code generation outside of glade3. We could however have another module 
which has the code generators. And I'm told most of it can be done with
libxslt, a small program which knows how to apply xslt and a bunch of
stylesheets for various languages. Would be a better idea

Regards
Archit

"Ishan Chattopadhyaya" <ishanchattopadhyaya@hclinfinet.com> writes:

> Dear Dragon and Murray,
> > > > I've seen entirely too many suggestions on this list along
> > > the lines
> > > > of "I don't use that feature so delete it."
> > [snip]
> > > Just a thought... did you mean removing *source code
> > > generation* in Glade-3 by this?
> >
> > A truly useless and bad feature should be removed. If you disagree with
> the
> > glade maintainers' ideas of what is bad and useless, then nothing stops
> you
> > from maintaining glade code-generation as a separate module. If you will
> not
> > do that then you don't care enough. If you can not do that, then you might
> > not be qualified to judge the issue.
> 
> I'm not so sure that source code generation as in glade-2 is 'useless' and a
> 'bad feature' as u put it. The point that I feel is that if it's not upto
> the mark or not well maintained, efforts should be made by somebody ( who is
> willing to spend time with it ) to re-write the feature (as you mentioned).
> 
> Just a suggestion, why not output/generate code that is compatible with
> LibGlade by default with glade2. And for the users who want better coding
> styles/approaches can alwayz use ext. XML parsers. To put it in another way,
> why not somebody makes a *good* source code generator and that generator be
> bundled with forthcoming glade3 releases by default?
> 
> When the GUI of glade can be be used for source generation, it's more user
> friendly. Of course, people can always use the terminal for that if they
> need. I think although it's the job of the IDEs to generate code, why not
> keep the option to the users to use it as standalone as in case of source
> generation?
> 
> The reason i feel a source generation option should be there is that many
> times I (and maybe other users) might feel the need to _quickly_ check the
> functionality of the interface in runtime. (after all glade is pretty much a
> rad tool). So, I don't feel it's harmful for the users in any way to let
> them use what they want. But since source code generation is a deprecated
> option, proper caution (such as an alert box) can always be given to the
> user before he uses such a feature (that is if such a feature is indeed
> implemented/allowed to remain unaltered).
> 
> BTW, I don;t want to influence anyone's decision by saying all this, but
> just letting the people know my thoughts on this.
> 
> > nothing stops you
> > from maintaining glade code-generation as a separate module. If you will
> not
> > do that then you don't care enough. If you can not do that, then you might
> > not be qualified to judge the issue.
> That's a *rubbish* assumption. There might be many users (glade-2) out there
> who still use source code generation. Now if they want that feature but
> don't want to maintain a new module for that, does that mean that they dont
> care about such a feature? Not everybody who cares can devote time to do
> that. And does it mean that people who 'cannot' maintain such a project are
> not qualified to judge? Acc. to me, the users are wise enough to judge what
> they need. But even if they are not, they are free to suggest the people in
> the decision making about what they feel.
> 
> Regds,
> Ishan
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Glade-devel maillist  -  Glade-devel@lists.ximian.com
> http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/glade-devel