Library publicity #235
Labels
No labels
bug
dependencies
documentation
duplicate
enhancement
github_actions
good first issue
help wanted
invalid
java
question
wontfix
No milestone
No project
No assignees
1 participant
Notifications
Due date
No due date set.
Dependencies
No dependencies set.
Reference
java-gi/java-gi#235
Loading…
Add table
Add a link
Reference in a new issue
No description provided.
Delete branch "%!s()"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
It took me some time to stumble on Java GI (I did so indirectly), don't you think the library could have its entry in GTK bindings list now?
I found this 2022 gnome discourse discussion where you mentioned you wanted the lib to be more mature before this happens, and was wondering what your thoughts were now. I personally think the binding is very decent and completely apt to produce nice apps, and it would gain from a broader audience, which this list could bring (as that's the natural place to check for a way to create gnome apps using Java).
Thank you for your interest in java-gi and for the kind words!
I know about the GTK website.
And there's a similar page on the GNOME website.
Personally I want to finish a few more backlog items before I consider the library stable enough to recommend it more widely:
io.github.jwharm.javagitoorg.javagi(maven coordinates, module and package names) but this is a breaking change for existing users, so I want to first publish a smaller 0.12.3 release with bugfixes and small enhancements, and only use the new domain from 0.13.0 onwards.Now, this list used to be a lot longer 😄 so it's probably just a few months more, before I'd say it's "good enough". But it's a weekend/evening project, so I can't make any promises. If there's anything you'd like to contribute, let me know!
Thanks for the insights, all those points seem indeed valuable.
I'll try to help. For instance, I can look into the JSpecify annotations migration (and at least see whether it causes errors / warnings in the existing examples & my own pet project).
That'd be appreciated!
The nullability annotations are currently only set on parameters, not return values. And array elements and generic types aren't annotated yet. The current code is very simple:
With JSpecify, we can annotate the entire class
@NullMarked(which means everything is default not-null), and add@Nullablewhere applicable.@mrlem I have a rather large PR (#238) ready to merge into main, changing the packages and modules from
io.github.jwharm.javagitoorg.javagi. If you're working on a PR for JSpecify annotations, I can wait with merging until you're ready? Because #238 moves all source files around and will make merging other changes a hassle.@jwharm don't wait for me, go for it. I'll rebase what I have done (didn't have as much time as I wanted this week, and won't have much more time this week-end)
Hey @mrlem are you still looking into the JSpecify nullability annotations? Otherwise I'll probably give it a go by myself.
No, sorry, I got caught in offline-life stuff. Feel free to go for it.
https://gitlab.gnome.org/Teams/Websites/www.gtk.org/-/merge_requests/200