aRts vs JACK

[Oliver Bausinger]

Hi all,

I'm following this with much interest.

On Mon, 2003-02-24 at 16:56, Neil Stevens wrote:
> >
> > Currently I however refuse to consider depending aRts on a GUI toolkit,
> > whereas glib would only be a moderately sized C portability library. In
> > fact, I would even think that depending Qt on glib would be a very wise
> > decision interoperability wise, because it would open a much easier path
> > towards in-process coexistence of GNOME and KDE code snippets.
> 
> In theory, glib is not a GUI toolkit, no. But in practice, glib is a 
> foundation of the GNOME system, and is not used in KDE.  This puts KDE 
> developers at a severe disadvantage if the KDE media system makes you use 
> it.
> 

Why? (Just for the sake of being different to GNOME? ... how silly)

What are the technical reasons for not wanting to depend on glib as an
object type system. From what I can see, it is

- small (can't really say that about libqt-mt.so)
- portable (even under Windows, not sure)
- mature (iteration 2.x.x)
- well tested and used (GStreamer and more)

KDE has no problem to rely on GNOME's libxml/libxslt, nor has it a
problem to rely on many 3rdparty libs. There's nothing special about
glib.

So, perhaps someone can give me a little more technical insight about
possible problems.


Greetings
Bausi


-- 
Oliver Bausinger <bausi at everest.mathematik.uni-tuebingen.de>