system-* tools' ui independence

[Arthur Pemberton]

On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 9:07 AM, Jakub 'Livio' Rusinek
<jakub.rusinek at gmail.com> wrote:
> Arthur Pemberton pisze:
>
>
> > On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 8:37 AM, Pekka Pietikainen<pp at ee.oulu.fi>  wrote:
>  >> On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 07:59:21PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>  >>   >  People who choose to do the development did it in whatever toolkit and
>  >>   >  language they preferred. Nothing is stopping you from duplicating that work
>  >>   >  in whatever toolkit you prefer or even porting Yast to Fedora but writing
>  >>   >  in one toolkit is not discriminating any desktop environment. It might not
>  >>   >  be ideal but works fine.
>  >>   It's probably still worth checking out.
>  >>
>  >>   Worst case after lots of work the UI library forces some crappy subset of
>  >>   Qt/GTK/text on all the config tools (Inherently such a library will always
>  >>   limit what you can do with the UI) + extra bloat (since you'll still need
>  >>   GTK or Qt)
>  >>
>  >>   Best case current functionality is kept (for little conversion work), people
>  >>   get their native UI look and we get a kick-ass text UI as a bonus.
>  >>
>  >>   Reality? Something in the middle, I'm sure ;)
>  >>
>  >>   --
>  >>   Pekka Pietikainen
>  >
>  >
>  > Maybe I am the one who is confused, but from what I read at the link,
>  > they decoupled the GUI from the C++ library which did the actual work,
>  > the idea being so that others could write new GUIs and just plug in to
>  > the library.
>  >
>  > You guys are talking like it's the other way around, there is no
>  > subset of widgets or anything of the sort. Aside from the fact that I
>  > think the backend code for manipulating config files should be in a
>  > transparent scripting language, I don't see how Yast would help.
>  >
>
>  YaST has nothing to do here. UI library was separated from YaST, and
>  it's all about.


I was mistaken.


-- 
Fedora 7 : sipping some of that moonshine
( www.pembo13.com )