On 12 February 2015 at 20:50, Jon Nordby <jononor@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 12 February 2015 at 06:30, Joao S. O. Bueno <gwidion@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Hi - >> >> after several months I am taking back a look at my Python bindings for >> GEGL, >> which make use of gobject introspection. >> >> The situation with gobject introspection is none but frustrating - maybe >> one could use it, if he could live in #gobject on irc - but there seens to >> be >> no documentation resources wherever. >> >> Moreover, it does not work very well, >> whenever something is not available using the auto-generated bindings, >> there is no workaround, but to make/request changes on the upstream >> project >> and wait for a new release. > > That can be seen as a feature, it makes sure fixes go upstream, which makes > it work for every language supported by GI - not just with one particular > binding. No doubt about that - if it is being used. But for a moment looking at the state of lack of documentation, I thought it might have been given up. > >> >> Add to that things that simply stop working >> (I just found out I can no longer instantiate a geglBuffer with the >> gobject >> introspection - and the solution in my package is a hack already to >> workaround >> the constructor failing in the past) > > Due to bug in GI, or changes in GEGL? Probably changes in GEGL - I will try to take a look this weekend - I was already using a non-standard constructor as I said (maybe it was Sabo's wrapper you mentioned in the other message. If so, that is broken now) > >> >> Moreover, the latest GEGL stable release is still built with introspection >> off - >> so people can't make use of the Python bindings without rebuildoing >> GEGL themselves, >> as all distros ship the package without the "gir" files. > > If we have not changed the default go be --with-introspection, we should do > that now. But yes, it will only work for GEGL 0.3+ >> >> But -- I may be wrong --- people may be firmly committed to gobject >> introspection, >> and it may be the future, and it is my fault not learning it right - >> And this is the main motivation for this message: >> Doo anyone believe/think/can explain/ if gobject introspection has a >> future at all? > > > I think if we added testcases for consuming GEGL though Python/GI to > upstream GEGL we would catch (& hopefully fix) breakages early. If we > include the bindings library you have created in upstream GEGL to provide > more Pythonic syntax, we could also add testcases for that. We should then > ship it by default I think. > > I don't see the GNOME ecosystem switching away from GI anytime soon. And > despite the pains (docs, bugs, annotations upstream), I do think the model > is better than hand-writing bindings... There are tests in my module - possibly not many as there could be - I'd like to keep the its git separated due to the Python packaging ecosystem (and merging the histories would be a mess, I guess). Do you think it could work as a git submodule in GEGL? js -><- > > > > > -- > Jon Nordby - www.jonnor.com _______________________________________________ gegl-developer-list mailing list List address: gegl-developer-list@xxxxxxxxx List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gegl-developer-list
