Re: RFC : Proposal for new simple GTK2-based DIA API [was Re: Dia Python]

[James Michael DuPont <mdupont777 yahoo com>]

--- Lars Clausen <lrclause@cs.uiuc.edu> wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jan 2003, James Michael DuPont wrote:
> > 
> > --- Hans Breuer <Hans@Breuer.org> wrote:
> > 
> >> >If there's also a perl plugin coming up, we'll
> >> >need to encapsulate these things differently, so they behave the
> >> same
> >> >between main program and plugins.
> >> >
> >> There is nothing which can be done in Perl which can not be done
> >> in Python but readable. Not to start language wars but do we
> >> really need another language binding if we lack resources to 
> >> maintain one?
> > 
> > yes we lack resources, but not will power. 
> > 
> >> 
> >> So many people with bright ideas, so many vapor ware ...
> > 
> > Yes hans, almost all of my ideas about DIA are vapor right now.
> > 
> > This is directly related to the work I have been putting into the
> gcc
> > interface. We have just released a version for testing 
> > http://freshmeat.net/projects/introspector/
> > 
> > The issue of bindings is difficult, but in the end after some
> > discussion, I have come up with the following idea, please comment.
> > 
> > 1. OAF/Bonobo : this is a fat API that supports costs more than we
> need
> > for scripting and interprocess communication.
> > 
> > 2. GObject2 / GTK : this is the interface we need to script, and
> > we can base those scripting interfaces on a standard. For example
> the
> > GTK2 has a set of perl bindings in the works
> > http://sourceforge.net/projects/gtk2-perl/
> > 
> > I think that the best way forward is to define a new API for dia,
> > and then start factoring the code from the app back underneath it.
> > 
> > Here are the classes that i would like to see :
> > 
> > 1. application
> > 2. diagram
> > 3. element
> > 4. connection
> > [...]
> > what do you think?
> 
> I think you should look a little more at the current Dia structure. 
> While
> it bears some resemblance to what you describe above, it's different
> enough
> that it would be an unnecessary pain to change it.  I really don't
> see the
> need to change the Dia API like that.

Well, I will review the differences, as far as I can tell, 
does the current API does have a clean separation between the
implementation and the inteface? 

Plus I would like to have a clean model for scripting. It will be
easier to aggree on a simple new model, and modify existing code to
work with it than to try and upgrade the existing. 


> 
> I have no idea what the redland/raptor api is.
> 
redland is a rdf application framework :
http://www.redland.opensource.ac.uk/
here is the readme 
http://www.redland.opensource.ac.uk/docs/README.html



=====
James Michael DuPont
http://introspector.sourceforge.net/

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com