java-gnome-hackers

[java-gnome-hackers] Clutter Bindings

[jan <jan...@gm...>]

Hello all,

I've started creating some Clutter bindings which are now available at:
bzr://research.operationaldynamics.com/bzr/java-gnome/hackers/jan/clutter

To begin with I'm just adding the bits I need so coverage is spotty
for now. I'm targeting the current unstable 0.9 release which should
be compatible with the upcoming 1.0 release. To use the bindings will
require both clutter and clutter-gtk installed, there are no tests for
this in the configure file yet.


Some issues I'd like some feedback on.

Clutter requires calling gtk_clutter_init() instead of gtk_init() so
I've added Gtk.initClutter() and a kludge to GtkMain to support
this. The problem with this is that accidentally calling Gtk.init()
when using the ClutterEmbed widget will crash the VM. Not sure what
the best way to deal with this is.

I made the Color constructor take ints instead of bytes because
Color(0, 0, 0) is nicer than Color((byte)0, (byte)0, (byte)0). Is this
bad style?

Some of the classes are derived from GInitiallyUnowned but in the
bindings I made them derive from Object. Will this cause problems? It
seems to work but I haven't looked into how the gc interacts with the
ref counting yet.

--
jan

Re: [java-gnome-hackers] Clutter Bindings

[Andrew C. <an...@op...>]

On Mon, 2009-07-13 at 23:10 +1000, jan wrote:

> Clutter requires calling gtk_clutter_init() instead of gtk_init() so

_instead_?

How inconvenient of them.

> I've added Gtk.initClutter()

I imagine that we'll prefer:

        Clutter.init(args);
        
and then some guard logic elsewhere.

That said, there is an enormous amount of additional (very important)
stuff that is done during our call to what we call GtkMain.gtk_init(),
so this won't be trivial.

I'll chat with you about this next time we catch up on IRC.

> I made the Color constructor take ints instead of bytes because
> Color(0, 0, 0) is nicer than Color((byte)0, (byte)0, (byte)0). Is this
> bad style?

Um, Color already has 

        public <init>(int, int, int);

so I'm not sure what you're talking about there.


> Some of the classes are derived from GInitiallyUnowned but in the
> bindings I made them derive from Object. Will this cause problems? 

No, that'll behave. We have a lot of code that deals with those
permutations, but if it decides to act up we'll set Vreixo on it. :)

AfC
Sydney