Removing the C bindings (was: [Kde-bindings] clib test app not working...)

[Richard Dale]

On Wednesday 24 March 2004 17:03, Dominique Devriese wrote:
> Richard Dale writes:
> > On Wednesday 24 March 2004 16:08, Dominique Devriese wrote:
> >> Richard Dale writes:
> >> > I would still like to kill the QtC/KDE C bindings ASAP. The Smoke
> >> > library supercedes that.
> >>
> >> If the test app isn't working, I also don't think there's much use
> >> in keeping them.  What other libraries are still using the C
> >> bindings as a backend ?
> >
> > Possible some Basic implementation I found on Sourceforge once, I'm
> > not sure. Maybe it would be a good idea to search around first.
>
> I see, but nothing in kdebindings itself ?  I was under the impression
> that some of the other bindings were still using the C bindings
> underneath..
No only Objective-C which uses qtc and kdec, and qtsharp which uses just qtc.

> >> Would it be possible to build new, better C bindings automatically
> >> with kalyptus ?
> >
> > Yes it wouldn't be very difficult to generate ones which didn't need
> > manual edits. Ashley has suggested a library api called 'Mirror' for
> > languages which are too static to use Smoke. I've personally got no
> > ethusiasm for C bindings at all though. No one actually wants to do
> > GUI programming in C, they are only for implementing bindings for
> > other languages. And Smoke does that so much better that I can't see
> > the point.
>
> Maybe here's another use case:
>
> I know some people are working on better integration of non-KDE apps
> into KDE ( e.g. making gnome apps use KDE file dialogs, there's some
> code in for this in kdenonbeta/qtgtk and other places iirc ).  Anyway,
> I think that C bindings to KDE would be useful for this kind of thing,
> but I'm not sure.
I think that's a different requirement - maybe you need to parse the Gnome 
apis and generate KDE code or something.

> But apart from that, I personally don't mind removing the C bindings,
> since they're ill maintained, not current, and I can't get the test
> app to work.
They are unloved by me too.

-- Richard