From: Brian Rogoff <bpr at artisan.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <15520.62654.921943.545063 at granite.artisan.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 14:22:54 -0800
To: garrigue at kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp
Cc: lablgtk at kaba.or.jp
Subject: Re: GTK 2.0
References: <15517.24133.604935.442218 at granite.artisan.com>
	<20020325181443C.garrigue@kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp>

Jacques Garrigue writes:
> From: Brian Rogoff <bpr at artisan.com>
> 
> > I've just started messing around with the new version of GTK, and it looks
> > like there are quite a few changes, even though there are compatibility
> > functions. What's the plan for the lablgtk world? Will there be two
> > versions to support 1.2 and 2.x, or just one? 
> 
> I have not started porting yet.
> The worse changes seem to be in the signal mechanism, meaning lots of
> internal code to modify... and hard to keep a compatible codebase.
> On the API side, there are a few new widgets, which improve a lot.
> They prove me correct in not attempting to interface CTree, which is
> now deprecated :-)
> On the downside, I've seen terrible comments about degraded
> performance :-(

Hmmm, I don't follow the mailing lists, where did you see the comments on
performance? Being a .0 release, I'm sure there will be quite a few issues 
which will need to get fixed. 

As long as we're on the subject, let me suggest that for lablgtk2 that 
you put in OCamldoc style comments. This way you we can generate spiffy 
looking documentation, and ocamldoc appears to be becoming the standard. 
Actually, retrofitting them on to the 1.2 versions of lablgtk would be nice
too. 

I agree that a fork is the right way to manage this. I doubt we'll move to 
2.0 anytime soon, I'm just playing around with it to get an idea about the 
new functionality. 

-- Brian