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

List:       kde-freeqt
Subject:    Re: [freeqt] Future of Harmony
From:       Stephan Kulow <coolo () itm ! mu-luebeck ! de>
Date:       1998-11-23 15:54:29
[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...
> 
While I agree let me tell you, that such C wrappers already exist. :)

Greetings, Stephan

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

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