Beyond 2.6 (was:Re: Gnucash 2.5/6)
phil.longstaff at yahoo.ca
Mon Feb 11 13:53:33 EST 2013
what's your view of the best way forward? I'm confused by what you want to wrap C++ inside GObject. What's your end vision and what are the steps along the way.
From: John Ralls <jralls at ceridwen.us>
To: Derek Atkins <warlord at mit.edu>
Cc: "gnucash-devel at gnucash.org Devel" <gnucash-devel at gnucash.org>
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 1:36:31 PM
Subject: Re: Beyond 2.6 (was:Re: Gnucash 2.5/6)
On Feb 11, 2013, at 10:23 AM, Derek Atkins <warlord at mit.edu> wrote:
> John Ralls <jralls at ceridwen.us> writes:
>>> As for Gtkmm, it's just a C++ interface wrapped around Gtk+. If we're
>>> dumping Gtk+ because we don't like the direction they're going, Gtkmm
>>> doesn't get us anywhere.
>> Having argued that C++ in the backend in not such a big deal, I'm
>> going to turn around and point out that dropping Gtk+ in favor of wx,
>> Qt, or some other GUI framework isn't a easy job: That *is* a complete
>> rewrite, and there's a lot of it.
>> Who would do it?
> I was just pointing out that if we had to spend a lot of time migrating
> to Gtk3 we might be better off spending the time migrating to something
OK. In fact we've (meaning Geert's) already done 90% of the job. All that's left is fixing the register to draw with Cairo surfaces instead of the ancient libgnome stuff. Not an easy job, but much easier than porting everything to Qt.
> I still wish I had written QOF in C++ instead of C a decade ago. :-(
Me too. But that's not too hard to fix, once I figure out how to get GObject to inherit from a C++ object. The answer is no doubt somewhere in glibmm.
But it's not quite time for that yet.
gnucash-devel mailing list
gnucash-devel at gnucash.org
More information about the gnucash-devel