[Pipet Devel] directory structure

[Brad Chapman]

> The last time we talked about UI widgets (particularly Gtk GUI 
widgets), we
> were thinking about them being "Bonobo widgets" (that is, widgets 
that have
> Bonobo bindings or whatever).  The thought was that Bonobo provided a
> language-independent way to display widgets.  So, I thought there 
might be
> a...
> 
>    piper/uil/bonobo

Yeah, but again, this would only be for a select subset of uis, since 
I wouldn't expect a Java UI or a Common Lisp UI or whatever to support 
bonobo interfaces or necessarily use the Gtk toolkit at all. I think 
bonobo is good for interoperating within Gnome, but don't really know 
how spiffy it is beyond that (since it wasn't designed with this in 
mind).

> directory.  /BUT/ that was before we found out about BlueBox.  This 
is what
> I'm now hoping BlueBox will provide: our widget set.  Yeah, I 
suppose then we
> won't be putting any BlueBox stuff directly into the package 
directory, so
> maybe this is not an issue right now...at least not until we find 
out more
> about BlueBox.

Yeah, well, BlueBox will do everything for us :-). I don't know, since 
we have no clue how this will work, we can't really speculate what'll 
be good and what'll be bad. Chances are we'll end up modifying the 
directory structure yet again. Sigh.

> They could just stick it in the piper/uil directory too.  But, if 
the only
> things that go in piper/uil are the UI's AND /NO/ SHARED COMPONENTS 
(which
> will always be present in the package), then maybe dropping the UI's 
in root
> is simplest.  I don't know.  Besides, Peep will always come with the
> package.......it's not like it has been dropped in by the user.

Well, I think that's a good argument for it. Root directory = simpler. 
Since I'm simple-minded, I like that.

> If my unconvincing argument doesn't convince you, then I'll put it 
in as is. 
> What do you say?

I say okay. I'm not really for rearranging around autoconf/make again, 
so let's just stick with it. As you said, without knowing what shared 
components will be, this way is simplest. 

Brad