To: aborquez at altavista.com
Cc: lablgtk at kaba.or.jp
Subject: Re: Glade support
In-Reply-To: <20010516033039.18228.cpmta at c012.sfo.cp.net>
References: <20010516033039.18228.cpmta at c012.sfo.cp.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <20010516192110D.garrigue at kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 19:21:10 +0900
From: Jacques Garrigue <garrigue at kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp>
Lines: 30

Hello Arturo,

>  It is not so clear to me that a Glade GUI builder is so easy to deal with
> for beginners. My experience with Glade is that was very easy to pack
> widgets and in a few minutes got a form. But dealing with callbacks is a very
> different story.

This is very true. For callbacks, you have to see examples.
I hope that lablgtk+ocamlbrowser makes it easier to find the available
callbacks, but you still have to choose the right one.

On the other hand, beginners are always impressed by a tool that can
make the layout for them. Onve you've got your nice, but dead,
application, you can start delving into the documentation for the next
steps. You have something to watch and be happy with.

> Also Glade as it was designed to be used with C (in spite its
> portable XML output) is much more low level than LablGtk, and I
> don't know if this XML output is suited to build a high level
> callback interface (it seems me not) 'a la par' of LablGtk.

That's why my point of view is that you don't really want to do the
callbacks with glade, just the layout, and that you want to be able to
change your layout easily (no code merging), at least during
development. That's where libglade is really neat. You can even load
dynamically specifications, for windows other than the main one.

Best regards,

Jacques