Re: [RFC] [PATCH]: Icon themability patch for -GUI images/icons

[Nicolas Roard]

Le 1 nov. 04, à 01:41, Quentin Mathé a écrit :
> Le 31 oct. 04, à 01:30, Alex Perez a écrit :
>
> > > - the icons themes and interface themes should use the same packaging
> > They are just bundles.....with Resources folders....
>
> Here is the main problem I explained in my previous mail, it's not 
> something acceptable to have themes which are bundles (in the case 
> bundles are loadable pieces of code with some extra resources). Themes 
> should just be folders (eventually opaque in the Workspace) which 
> contains resources but no code.

more exactly, we can have two kind of "themes", as I see it. First, 
there is the "gui bundles" loaded via GSAppKitUserBundles default;
thoses can contains code, and in fact can be anything, not just theme. 
That's how WildMenus or Camaelon works.
The second possibility is to have "pixmaps" themes : just a bunch of 
pixmaps in a bundle, loaded by some kind of theme engine. That's my
goal for the next release of Camaelon.
"Code" themes are possibly faster than "pixmaps" themes. On the other 
hand, creating a "pixmap" theme is much easier for a non-programmer,
and can also feature more "rich" displays.
Theses definitions in mind, effectively, "pixmaps" themes shouldn't 
need any code at all.

> > > - the icons themes and interface themes should have the possibility 
> > > to override specifics application
> >
> > yes this is always necessary with apps like Gorm.
>
> ok

hm, why would it be necessary for Gorm ? To the contrary, I think it's 
quite useful to have Gorm using the current theme :-)

> > Everything you've written so far sounds logical, except for the "you 
> > never want to icon theme without an interface theme" which is an 
> > absolutely absurd statement, which both you and rIO made.
>
> I never said that "I never want an icon theme without an interface 
> theme", because you are right it is absurd. And I don't think rIO made 
> such statement.
> Where have you picked this sentence ?

I guess it's probably my fault yesterday when we discussed on the irc 
channel, I was perhaps not clear enough in my explanations.
What I said is that for me, an icon theme will be exploitable directly 
by Camaelon (for Camaelon, it will just be a normal pixmap theme, which
only happend to contains icons). As anyway for an user you want to have 
some kind of methods for managing simply your themes,  and as I really 
don't think having such theme management thing have its place in -gui, 
I was just saying that if an user want to use themes, he'll use 
Camaelon or something similar.
There's no need in my opinion to add some half-done theme icons support 
in -gui while we have gui bundles for doing that.

> > I'm beginning to get the feeling  that you feel I am encroaching on 
> > your turf.
>
> … You are somewhat paranoiac. I will be very happy that you finish to 
> code NSToolbar, fix NSTableView, work on the IconKit or whatever :-), 
> but like any open source developers which implements a thing on his 
> spare time, if somebody contributes to "my" code, I would like he does 
> the thing correctly. Precisely I would enjoy if he does the thing 
> better than what I would have coded myself ;-).
> Well moreover in this case, it is not my turf because I'm not working 
> on themes support, and similarly I'm not a -gui maintainers then it is 
> not me who will take the decision to apply your patch or not…
> But what I dislike in your way to act is that Nicolas has been working 
> hard on Camaelon which is a theme engine, which means that icon themes 
> support are related to it, and you… you are just creating a quick 
> patch on your side without any discussions with Nicolas (I can be 
> wrong here…), you submit it, then you are upset about me because I 
> said what I'm thinking about it as you request… By such acting, I 
> would understand that Nicolas could be somewhat upset.
> I see two options which are right here in my opinion : you collaborate 
> with Nicolas on Camaelon for GNUstep themes support or you develop 
> your Themes framework (eventually merged into -gui if the maintainers 
> want it) if you think you can produce something which is better than 
> Camaelon.

Well, I'm not "upset" -- I honnestly have others preoccupations in my 
life than being upset by a patch, and I'm not even a gnustep maintener 
-- I just find this patch non-optimal and providing little interest. 
I'm perhaps wrong but for the moment I'm frankly not convainced... give 
me convaincing arguments, that's all I ask !

--
Nicolas Roard
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
 -Arthur C. Clarke