Gio

Nikolai_W · June 4, 2010, 4:28pm

Iâ€™m very disappointed to see that gio was removed.

What would it take to get it re-added?

And please don’t use DECLARE*, DEF_, SCAN_ family
macros. Please keep coding style with other bindings.

I have now removed all DECLARE* and DEF_; four hours of work, even
with automation. What exactly is the problem with SCAN_? I can
rename them to RBGIO2_SCAN_*, but I have absolutely no desire to
duplicate that kind of code for exactly the reasons I stated
previously:

â€¦ sometimes order is important and then we have a problem if it is done
in different ways

I can also make the argument and block variables name explicit, that
is, instead of

    GCancellable *cancellable;
    VALUE block;

    SCAN_1_ARG_WITH_BLOCK("01", cancellable, RVAL2GCANCELLABLE);

    g_drive_poll_for_media(_SELF(self),
                           cancellable,
                           rbgio_async_ready_callback,
                           (gpointer)block);

    return self;

we can have

    GCancellable *cancellable;
    VALUE block;

    RBGIO2_SCAN_1_ARG_WITH_BLOCK(argc, argv, "01", cancellable,

RVAL2GCANCELLABLE, block);

    g_drive_poll_for_media(_SELF(self),
                           cancellable,
                           rbgio_async_ready_callback,
                           (gpointer)block);

    return self;

if that kind of â€œbehind the scenesâ€ action is confusing.

Is this an acceptable compromise?

Nikolai_W · June 11, 2010, 7:54pm

On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 16:27, Nikolai W. [email protected] wrote:

Iâ€™m very disappointed to see that gio was removed.

Bump. Whatâ€™s going on?

Nikolai_W · June 12, 2010, 12:47pm

Hi,

In [email protected]
“[ruby-gnome2-devel-en] gio” on Fri, 4 Jun 2010 16:27:42 +0200,
Nikolai W. [email protected] wrote:

What would it take to get it re-added?

If Ruby/GIO uses Ruby-GNOME2 style, we are welcome to re-add
Ruby/GIO.

And please don’t use DECLARE*, DEF_, SCAN_ family
macros. Please keep coding style with other bindings.

I have now removed all DECLARE* and DEF_*; four hours of work, even
with automation.

Thanks!!!

              What exactly is the problem with SCAN_*?  I can
rename them to RBGIO2_SCAN_*, but I have absolutely no desire to
duplicate that kind of code for exactly the reasons I stated
previously:

Please don’t use the macros too.

    VALUE block;
if that kind of e$B!He(Bbehind the scenese$B!Ie(B action is confusing.

Is this an acceptable compromise?

Uhm… I can’t accept it.

If we need to change 1 argument to 2 arguments, we need to
change XXX_SCAN_1_XXX to XXX_SCAN_2_XXX and “01” to “02”.
We also can’t handle selectable argument. For example, we
write like the following when we want to accept ID or NAME
as an argument:

VALUE id_or_name, id = Qnil, name = Qnil;
rb_scan_args(argc, argv, “10”, &id_or_name);
if (TYPE(id_or_name) == T_STRING) {
name = id_or_name;
} else {
id = id_or_name;
}

If we accept the such argument, we need to define a macro
for the case.

So I don’t think the XXX_SCAN_N_XXX approach is a good idea
for readability, writability and extensibility in the
Ruby-GNOME2 project.

Thanks,

kou

Nikolai_W · June 12, 2010, 1:01pm

2010/6/12 Kouhei S. [email protected]:

So I don’t think the XXX_SCAN_N_XXX approach is a good idea
for readability, writability and extensibility in the
Ruby-GNOME2 project.

OK. Iâ€™ll remove them.

May I then re-add it, or do you want a patch instead?

Nikolai_W · June 12, 2010, 1:09pm

Hi,

In [email protected]
“Re: [ruby-gnome2-devel-en] gio” on Sat, 12 Jun 2010 13:00:32 +0200,
Nikolai W. [email protected] wrote:

So I don’t think the XXX_SCAN_N_XXX approach is a good idea
for readability, writability and extensibility in the
Ruby-GNOME2 project.

OK. I¢ll remove them.

Thanks!

May I then re-add it, or do you want a patch instead?

You can re-add it. But if there are some problems, we will
comment them. In the case, please fix them.

Thanks,

kou

Nikolai_W · June 12, 2010, 1:23pm

2010/6/12 Kouhei S. [email protected]:

OK. Â Iâ€™ll remove them.

Thanks!

May I then re-add it, or do you want a patch instead?

You can re-add it. But if there are some problems, we will
comment them. In the case, please fix them.

OK, great!

Nikolai_W · June 17, 2010, 4:26pm

On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 15:59, Nikolai W. [email protected] wrote:

block you have to convert all the parameters first, as any errors have
to be raised before you save the blockâ€¦this is so boring.

OK, so this is now done.

Can we perhaps consider moving to Git in the future. Subversion is
seriously a pain to work with.

There are still a bunch of TODOs that remain of the â€œI need input from
others on how to resolve themâ€ kind, so please search for TODO in *.c
and see if you have any suggestions.

Enjoy.

Nikolai_W · June 17, 2010, 4:22pm

On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 13:22, Nikolai W. [email protected] wrote:

2010/6/12 Kouhei S. [email protected]:

So I don’t think the XXX_SCAN_N_XXX approach is a good idea
for readability, writability and extensibility in the
Ruby-GNOME2 project.

OK. Â Iâ€™ll remove them.

OK, now I remember why I created the SCAN_* macros. When you take a
block you have to convert all the parameters first, as any errors have
to be raised before you save the blockâ€¦this is so boring.

Nikolai_W · June 20, 2010, 12:34pm

Hi,

In [email protected]
“Re: [ruby-gnome2-devel-en] gio” on Wed, 16 Jun 2010 16:17:04 +0200,
Nikolai W. [email protected] wrote:

OK, so this is now done.
Thanks!

There are still a bunch of TODOs that remain of the â€œI need input from
others on how to resolve themâ€ kind, so please search for TODO in *.c
and see if you have any suggestions.

Please also check the bug?
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=470969&aid=3018618&group_id=53614

Thanks,

kou

Nikolai_W · July 3, 2010, 11:32am

On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 14:30, Nikolai W. [email protected] wrote:

Also, what is the current target for Ruby-GNOME2? Â 2.22? Â 2.24?

Iâ€™ve brought the bindings up to 2.24 compatibility and implemented
many missing classes and the unix interface as well.

I have some questions, though.

How do I know when to use rbgobj_boxed_not_copy_obj?

What name do we prefer, GLib::File::Enumerator or GLib::FileEnumerator?

Same for GLib::File::Info versus GLib::FileInfo? (Ruby has File::Stat.)

When should I be using G_PROTECT_CALLBACK?

Thanks!

Nikolai_W · June 20, 2010, 2:31pm

On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 12:33, Kouhei S. [email protected] wrote:

Â Nikolai W. [email protected] wrote:

There are still a bunch of TODOs that remain of the â€œI need input from
others on how to resolve themâ€ kind, so please search for TODO in *.c
and see if you have any suggestions.

Please also check the bug?
Â https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=470969&aid=3018618&group_id=53614

I’ll fix it tomorrow.

Also, what is the current target for Ruby-GNOME2? 2.22? 2.24?

Nikolai_W · July 4, 2010, 10:35am

Hi,

In [email protected]
“Re: [ruby-gnome2-devel-en] gio” on Sat, 3 Jul 2010 11:31:49 +0200,
Nikolai W. [email protected] wrote:

How do I know when to use rbgobj_boxed_not_copy_obj?

It’s a time to use rbgobj_boxed_not_copy_obj() when a boxed
object cannot be created by user. (If you don’t provide
BoxedClass.new, you need to use
rbgobj_boxed_not_copy_obj().)

What name do we prefer, GLib::File::Enumerator or GLib::FileEnumerator?

Same for GLib::File::Info versus GLib::FileInfo? (Ruby has File::Stat.)

GLib::FileEnumerator and GLib::FileInfo.
See also:
http://ruby-gnome2.sourceforge.jp/hiki.cgi?Naming+and+Conversion+Rules

When should I be using G_PROTECT_CALLBACK?

When you allow user to use callback block.

Thanks,

kou

Nikolai_W · July 8, 2010, 11:21pm

OK, almost done. Quite a few to-dos, but Iâ€™m quite happy with it now.

Another question, though:

How do I know when to use GOBJ2RVAL_UNREF? Should I use it as soon as
a new, freshly allocated, GObject * is returned? It seems that quite
a few uses of GOBJ2RVAL may be incorrect in, for example, gtk/src/*.c,
if thatâ€™s the case.

Nikolai_W · July 12, 2010, 11:06am

On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 23:21, Nikolai W. [email protected] wrote:

OK, almost done. Â Quite a few to-dos, but Iâ€™m quite happy with it now.

OK, done. GIO has been updated to 2.24.1, should compile under Ruby
1.9.* and has a lot fewer to-dos.

Implementing GConverter remains to be done. Thereâ€™s code in the
repository for it, but it doesnâ€™t work. I donâ€™t exactly know how to
solve it, actually, as it seems that the API more or less requires
that you keep auxiliary data around between calls (like ext/iconv/*
does as well), but I canâ€™t figure out a good way of doing so.

Another question, though:

How do I know when to use GOBJ2RVAL_UNREF? Â Should I use it as soon as
a new, freshly allocated, GObject * is returned? Â It seems that quite
a few uses of GOBJ2RVAL may be incorrect in, for example, gtk/src/*.c,
if thatâ€™s the case.

I really would like this question answered.

Also, I think that rbg_cstr2rval_with_free should be rewritten,
wrapping it in a rb_ensure that ensures that that g_free is called
even if rb_str_new2 throws an error. What do you think?

Nikolai_W · July 12, 2010, 2:44pm

Hi,

Sorry for my late response.

In [email protected]
“Re: [ruby-gnome2-devel-en] gio” on Mon, 12 Jul 2010 11:06:12 +0200,
Nikolai W. [email protected] wrote:

OK, done. GIO has been updated to 2.24.1, should compile under Ruby
1.9.* and has a lot fewer to-dos.

Great!

How do I know when to use GOBJ2RVAL_UNREF? Should I use it as soon as
a new, freshly allocated, GObject * is returned?

GOBJ2RVAL_UNREF is a convenience macro. It meens that the
following:

ruby_object = GOBJE2RVAL(g_object);
g_object_unref(g_object);

You can use GOBJ2RVAL_UNREF when you need to unref converted
GObject.

                                              It seems that quite
a few uses of GOBJ2RVAL may be incorrect in, for example, gtk/src/*.c,
if that¢s the case.

Please give us a patch.

Also, I think that rbg_cstr2rval_with_free should be rewritten,
wrapping it in a rb_ensure that ensures that that g_free is called
even if rb_str_new2 throws an error. What do you think?

I agree with you.

Thanks,

kou

Nikolai_W · July 12, 2010, 6:37pm

2010/7/12 Kouhei S. [email protected]:

Sorry for my late response.

No problem!

In [email protected]
Â “Re: [ruby-gnome2-devel-en] gio” on Mon, 12 Jul 2010 11:06:12 +0200,
Â Nikolai W. [email protected] wrote:

GObject.

Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â It seems that quite
a few uses of GOBJ2RVAL may be incorrect in, for example, gtk/src/*.c,
if thatâ€™s the case.

So, use GOBJ2RVAL_UNREF whenever a function returns a freshly
allocated/new GObject *?

Also, I noticed quite a few uses of G_CHILD_ADD that I donâ€™t
understand. For example, in gtk/src/rbgdkdraw.c we have
gdkdraw_set_colormap that does G_CHILD_REMOVE/G_CHILD_ADD for the
colormap that weâ€™re setting. Why? I mean, if the colormap goes out
of Ruby scope itâ€™ll still be referenced by the GdkDrawable, right? So
why all the fuss with managing it as a child with G_CHILD_*?