Re: PROPOSAL: New i18n solution

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 23 Feb, Sven Neumann wrote:

> The current solution for the plugins
> distributed with The GIMP works reasonably good.

 Really? I wouldn't call "we have to pre-add the menuentries to GIMPs
 core source otherwise it wouldn't work" working good. Actually my
 patch doesn't really address those problems, but the current code
 for plugin localisaing is more or lass an evil hack. 

> I don't see why we 
> should ditch the hardcoded path in favor of a config file the user 
> will be able to mess with. I thought your proposal would only be a 
> hook for additional plugins?!

 It was meant such, but from your description it seemed to me that 
 you'd like to add those entries to ALL plugins. From your answer
 I can see that this was just a misunderstanding. Sorry, Sven.

 But this make it even harder to modify the parser like you'd like
 since it's only usable for a fixed number of arguments. It would work
 to insert those parameters before the pdb-args but that would 
 a) be incompatible and b) mean that every plugin must have such an entry.

> I was speaking about the fact that whatever solution we come up
> with will not be backward compatible.

 Of course it will or at least should try to be. My current solution for
 example is. And your suggested solution will also as long as you don't
 touch the wire protocol.

> I will have to look through the code in app/plug_in.c a little more,
> but I think I was wrong in my last mail and there's no need to change
> the wire protocol at all. 

 It would be really bad to do so. And even worse: This code is very
 simple to break, just look at it and it won't compile on DEC Alpha
 anymore; another look and it will cause every plugin under Solaris to
 fail. :( 

> The amount of code-changes is IMHO more or less equal. The small 
> feature you want to add should be well-thought and I don't see 
> why you simply wipe away the arguments have I put up against your 
> solution.

 Of course I try to wipe them away if they seem not reasonable or
 correct to me, that's how argumentation works. HOWEVER this
 doesn't mean that I don't care about your thoughts, they are
 really helpful and result in new ideas in my head.

 Just to clarify what I do think of:
 I'd like to have this done as simple as possible that means:
  - No PDB calls
  - No wire protocol changes
 There should be a simple libgimp call which allows plugins to
 register themselves in a new domain. If the domain is already
 available, check whether the path matches (not done in my patch
 yet!), if not simply add it.
 The GIMP on the other side should simply be able to get all the
 registered domains and to do the right things when gimpgettext()
 is called.

 Sven, your ideas are very nice but they are neither simple nor
 so easy to implement like mine. Please consider that we have 
 already feature freeze, are trying to get a stable version out
 and just don't have the time for a fullfeatured platinum
 solution.

> Don't tell me that you have spent days to create your patch 
> and don't want your hard work to be discarded.

<Sarkasm on>

 GOD, I spend days without anything to eat and drink in my room just
 to get this idea into a working patch. PLEASE don't blow it away!

<Sarkasm off>

 Sven, if you have good ideas, tell them to me and the world, any ideas
 are really appreciated. My only goal is to do my very best to get a new
 stable release of this great project done ASAP. I don't care about anything
 else at the moment and would rather like to concentrate on the GIMP
 instead of wasting time with flaming. 

-- 

Servus,
       Daniel



[Index of Archives]     [Video For Linux]     [Photo]     [Yosemite News]     [gtk]     [GIMP for Windows]     [KDE]     [GEGL]     [Gimp's Home]     [Gimp on GUI]     [Gimp on Windows]     [Steve's Art]

  Powered by Linux