system-* tools' ui independence
Jakub 'Livio' Rusinek
jakub.rusinek at gmail.com
Wed Feb 27 15:07:36 UTC 2008
Arthur Pemberton pisze:
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 8:37 AM, Pekka Pietikainen<pp at ee.oulu.fi> wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 07:59:21PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> > People who choose to do the development did it in whatever toolkit and
>> > language they preferred. Nothing is stopping you from duplicating that work
>> > in whatever toolkit you prefer or even porting Yast to Fedora but writing
>> > in one toolkit is not discriminating any desktop environment. It might not
>> > be ideal but works fine.
>> It's probably still worth checking out.
>>
>> Worst case after lots of work the UI library forces some crappy subset of
>> Qt/GTK/text on all the config tools (Inherently such a library will always
>> limit what you can do with the UI) + extra bloat (since you'll still need
>> GTK or Qt)
>>
>> Best case current functionality is kept (for little conversion work), people
>> get their native UI look and we get a kick-ass text UI as a bonus.
>>
>> Reality? Something in the middle, I'm sure ;)
>>
>> --
>> Pekka Pietikainen
>
>
> Maybe I am the one who is confused, but from what I read at the link,
> they decoupled the GUI from the C++ library which did the actual work,
> the idea being so that others could write new GUIs and just plug in to
> the library.
>
> You guys are talking like it's the other way around, there is no
> subset of widgets or anything of the sort. Aside from the fact that I
> think the backend code for manipulating config files should be in a
> transparent scripting language, I don't see how Yast would help.
>
YaST has nothing to do here. UI library was separated from YaST, and
it's all about.
More information about the devel
mailing list