screenlets-dev team mailing list archive

[Natan Yellin <aantny@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hello Rico,

On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 7:43 PM, Rico Pfaus <ryx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Am Dienstag, den 17.03.2009, 07:33 +0200 schrieb Natan Yellin:
> > Hello Rico,
> Hi Natan. Sory for the rather long delay but I was very busy and had
> almost no time to go through the u-a revisions and see what has changed
> since the fork (and, honestly, it's quite a bit :) ...). I still didn't
> manage to check everything in detail, but from what I saw it seems as if
> you fixed a lot of things that always bugged me anyway.
>
> And just to be sure - had it any special reason that you answered me in
> private or did you just miss to respond to the list (the automatic
> response address seems to point to the original sender)? If you want to
> keep our talk private then please let me know, otherwise maybe you could
> just send your response to the mailing list? As you please.
>
Yeah, I replied directly to you by accident.

>
> > I forked Universal Applets due to a series of unpleasant experiences
> > with the then-leader of the Screenlets project. At the time, I was
> > spending most of my spare coding time working out arguments and trying
> > to make peace. I was tired of fighting and, quite honestly, I just
> > wanted to code.
> Nevermind, I fully understand that. Sounds like a valid reason to me.
>
> > With that in mind, I don't think that we should keep the projects
> > separate just for the sake of keeping them separate. It might make
> > sense to separate the code for organizational purposes (something that
> > we considering doing in the past anyway) but it'll take some time to
> > do so. In the meantime, I don't want to see another situation where
> > people are working on two different codebases and producing
> > incompatible code.
> That's good to hear and in fact I'd prefer that road, too. I just want
> to avoid wasting efforts that have been put into either of the projects.
> But you're right, it would cause a waste of effort when keeping two
> different codebases.
>
> > My proposal on this would be to work together on fixing bugs and
> > cleaning up code. Once we're ready for a stable release, we can split
> > all of the UA functionality into a separate branch. (Much, but not
> > all, of it is already in separate files.)
> Sounds good. Do you have any proposals about if/how we can merge the
> universal-applets improvements into the screenlets?
>
I've tried to merge all of Screenlets' changes into Universal Applets, so it
would probably make sense to just take the Universal Applets branch and turn
that into the new trunk of the merged project. There are some minor
functional regressions, but they're mostly due to the new architecture still
being incomplete. If necessary, we can revert some of those changes for now.

I think it'll be less work to do things that way than vice versa.

>
> My first idea was to merge all bugfixes and core-related changes into
> screenlets trunk, clean up a little and create a final 0.1.x release
> (e.g. 0.1.4). Then we could start a new screenlets-0.2 branch and are
> open for everything new; e.g. implementing the "heavier"
> universal-applets changes like melange or doing a few tiny compatibility
> breaks (which are partly required to get rid of some ugly remains).
>
> But I am not totally convinced of this idea (mainly because I don't know
> how much work it would cause to merge back the u-a changes) and would
> really like to hear some other opinions on that topic. So feel free to
> tell me your alternatives :)
>
>
> best regards
>
> Rico
>
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Natan
> > On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 5:39 PM, Rico Pfaus <ryx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > wrote:
> >         Hi everybody!
> >
> >         Due to the unhappy situation of the screenlets being forked
> >         into the
> >         universal-applets project there is some need to reorganize
> >         things, I
> >         guess.
> >
> >         I want to make clear that I have no interest in either of the
> >         projects
> >         being abandoned or shut down in favor of the other. Instead
> >         I'd propose
> >         that we try to "share responsibilities", which means we
> >         logically
> >         separate the universal applets system from the screenlets as
> >         widget
> >         framework.
> >
> >         One possibility I can see would be to have universal applets
> >         handle the
> >         whole "pluggable applet" thing (I think that part is called
> >         the "melange
> >         server", right?) and the underlying IPC-framework. The
> >         screenlets would
> >         stay a widget engine but would become subclasses of a
> >         PluggableApplet or
> >         alike. That way the universal-applets would focus on the
> >         underlying
> >         framework that can be embedded into gtk apps and the
> >         screenlets would
> >         mainly focus on the front-end and user-visible part. That way
> >         we maybe
> >         could get the best of both worlds without interfering.
> >
> >         Of course this is just a first rough idea and I am open to any
> >         other
> >         proposals so please let me know what you think. Thanks in
> >         advance!
> >
> >         best regards
> >
> >         Rico (RYX)
> >
> >
> >         _______________________________________________
> >         Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~screenlets-dev<https://launchpad.net/%7Escreenlets-dev>
> >         Post to     : screenlets-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >         Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~screenlets-dev<https://launchpad.net/%7Escreenlets-dev>
> >         More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
> >
> >
>
> Cheers,
Natan