To: florian at hars.de
Cc: lablgtk at kaba.or.jp
Subject: Re: To glade or not to glade (Was: [Caml-announce] Mlglade
 prerelease announce)
In-Reply-To: <20011128090656.B7752 at hars>
References: <20011127200825.7937abc2.Benjamin.Monate at lri.fr>
	<20011128090656.B7752@hars>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <20011128172124X.garrigue at kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 17:21:24 +0900
From: Jacques Garrigue <garrigue at kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp>
Lines: 29

From: Florian Hars <florian@hars.de>

> OK, now we have mlglade
> > http://www.lri.fr/~monate/mlglade
> which uses Glade output, but is independent from libglade
> 
> the libglade support in LablGTK
> http://wwwfun.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp/soft/olabl/lablgtk.html
> which, obviously, is different from mlglade in that it requires
> libglade
> 
> and zoggy
> http://pauillac.inria.fr/~guesdon/Tools/zoggy/zoggy.html
> which is an independent reimplementation of the glade functionality.
> 
> Which should I use?

My hope was that we would end up with a kind of compatibility between
all these tools. At least, if they were all able to handle the glade
xml format (or some subset of it), this would make some interaction
possible.

Well, try them all and choose the one which fits you best.

By the way, libglade support is currently the only approach which
works for all widgets. But you will not obtain a lablgtk description
of the GUI.

Jacques