[cldp] Re: libraries wrapping incompatible interfaces

  • From: Karol Pietrzak <kap4020@xxxxxxx>
  • To: cldp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 22:58:14 -0400

On Friday 14 April 2006 18:23, Benjamin Rich wrote:
> Karol,

> > One thing I'd like the Linux community to move away from is the strictly
> > GNOME or strictly KDE applications.
> >
> > For example, Gaphor [http://gaphor.sourceforge.net/] is a GNOME UML
> > application, while Umbrello [http://uml.sourceforge.net] is a KDE UML
> > application.
> >
> > I think it leads to a lot of duplication, just like the current RPM
> > situation.
> I definitely agree, but until a universal toolkit is chosen, I think
> this will continue to happen. I don't think the CLDP can do anything
> about this - people will continue to cling to their favourites until
> the two are totally integrated. Or, until GTK wins out, which I can
> only presume will happen eventually because QT is not completely OSS,
> and so I think the OS community will eventually dump it.

I completely agree with you that there will be no "universal toolkit".  Of 
course, we could wrap GTK and Qt.  It would quite the arduous and 
time-consuming task, but it is possible.  After all, IBM wrapped win32, 
Motif, and GTK under the SWT toolkit.

IMHO, I don't think GTK will win out because of any weaknesses in Qt.  Qt is 
GPL for non-commercial applications for both Win32, Mac OS X, and Linux, and 
works very well on all those platforms.  Since the vast majority of open 
source software is non-commercial, I don't think GTK will win out for that 

I think this is a side discussion we needn't concern ourselves with, because, 
like you said, there is no "universal tookit".

> [....]
> All extremely valid points, except once again we can't really make a
> universal printing or filesystem access layer. There are no doubt
> already apps out there trying to achieve this - adding our own would
> be a duplicate of effort.

Actually, I looked: I found surprisingly few, and none of them fit my goals 
(please feel free to enlighten me).

KDE, for example, wraps CUPS, LPRng, etc. in KDEprint 

KDE's license policy [http://developer.kde.org/policies/licensepolicy.html] 
states that all libraries must be  under a LGPL compatible license, so we 
could conceivably use their code.

Actually, on that note, what do you think the CLDP will do about the desktop 
environment?  Will there be a requirement _for_ a desktop environment (e.g., 
either GNOME or KDE), or no requirement at all?

Technically speaking, we could easily check at runtime for KDE and use kprint 
to get the list of printers on the system, thereby taking advantage of the 
CUPS, LPRng, etc. wrapping that KDE has already done.

Politically speaking, the CLDP cannot mandate the existence of the KDE 
libraries.  So should the CLDP libraries check for the KDE libraries, and 
then GNOME libraries, etc., until it finds a valid printing "package"?  And 
then fallback to its own detection mechanisms for CUPS, LPRng, etc.?

Just food for thought.

> But we might as well choose and sponsor some worthy projects to be our
> designated default 'layer' apps for printing etc. - I'll look into
> this, post suggestions if you have some project in mind.

Yes, please, if you find something, post back.  One thing I think is extremely 
important is to consider commercial use of everything the CLDP covers.  
Agree?  Disagree?

Thanks for your time!

Karl Pietrzak

Other related posts: