[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-freeqt
Subject:    Re: [freeqt] Future of Harmony
From:       Mosfet <mosfet () jorsm ! com>
Date:       1998-11-23 16:47:12
[Download RAW message or body]

Stephan Kulow wrote:
> 
> >
> > Andy Tai wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Well, I totally agree with that as a policy; I'd like gtk to speak KDE
> > > > as well as possible so you can produce a KDE app in gtk - perhaps that's
> > > > my next project? ;)
> > >
> > > If so, that's different from Hayes' vision of "merging into one solution."
> > > There would still be two projects, but they can share more standards and
> > > interoperability.  (That's fine.) But Hayes' original  "resigning" letter is
> > > unjustified because it implies there is no point to work on Gnome and
> > > everyone should switch to KDE instead.
> > >
> > > The way to go is not to have KDE absorbing GNOME developers, but to have the
> > > two projects be compatiblle in common protocols.
> > > Common protocols also allow the use of different toolkits.  Star Office
> > > supports KDE but it does not use Qt.
> > >
> >
> > I'd go even further. It would be nice if some of the libraries can be
> > shared between the two projects. One example would be using Imlib for
> > pixmaps in QT (kind of like Harmony does). Another would be if C++
> > wrappers could be built around Orbit and if Orbit can be made fully
> > CORBA compliant. That way more code could be shared between the two
> > projects and less work replicated between them.
> >
> If Orbit becomes stable and is better than MICO in more than one
> respect (I know many are talking about C++ bloat and such stuff),
> I see no problem why KDE couldn't adopt it. MICO works fine and
> works now.
> 

I agree. I'm not saying we should go to Orbit right now. Personally I am
too ignorant of Mico internals to give a valid opinion, but I doubt it
is C++ bloat that is killing it anyways. I haven't really looked at it
much to see exactly what it is, since I am still learning how to use it
;)

It wasn't really Mico bloat I was talking about anyways (compiles take a
day but apps seem okay), but the fact that two implementations would be
needed for people that want to use some Gnome Corba apps alongside KDE.
If Orbit was able to be brought up to spec than possibly that would not
be needed. I guess the same would apply to Mico, too - but I find it
easier to write C++ wrappers around C than the other way around (and
this is from experience - not Gnome propaganda ;) I'm still not versed
enough in either ORB to be aware of all the issues involved, but it
would be nice...

> Greetings, Stephan
> 
> --
> Stephan Kulow (coolo@kde.org)
> detrever lleps ot ysae ylgnizama s'ti

-- 
Daniel M. Duley - Unix developer & sys admin.
mosfet@jorsm.com
mosfet@mieterra.com
ksiag@lowrent.org

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]