libglade?

[John (J5) Palmieri]

On Mon, 2008-01-14 at 15:41 -0600, Jameson "Chema" Quinn wrote:
> I'm still noodling around, trying to settle on a good design for
> develop. It looks as if libglade would be nice to have. The interfaces
> it uses are loaded directly from XML, which makes them separate from
> the source code. I did a naive 'yum install libglade' and my XO pulled
> 100k for the library and about 3.5 MB (uncompressed) of dependencies.
> For our purposes, under .5MB of those dependencies are really needed.
> 
> If, after rebuilding to remove dependencies on gnome-libs and the
> like, the whole thing came in at less than half a megabyte of
> uncompressed code, do people think it should be included in the base
> system? Obviously, the OLPC version would include all the sugar
> widgets... 

Use GtkBuilder instead.  It is based off of libglade the biggest
difference is instead of a widget tag there is an object tag. It also
loads files a bit differently as you don't need to have top level
windows like you do in LibGlade but there is no way to say load from a
specific root in the xml tree so you end up having to split the file
into different pieces depending on how you structure your UI.

-- 
John (J5) Palmieri <johnp at redhat.com>