Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 29th Jul 2009 22:30 UTC, submitted by diegocg
Gnome This morning Intel has announced the release of Clutter 1.0.0, the graphics library that is gaining speed within the GNOME development community (it is used by Gnome Shell). "This toolkit provides a library/API for creating rich user interfaces in a relatively easy to use way that conceals much of the challenges of programming your application to directly use OpenGL or OpenGL ES. Clutter is already being used within Moblin V2 and its user interface is very impressive."
Order by: Score:
nice
by poundsmack on Wed 29th Jul 2009 23:05 UTC
poundsmack
Member since:
2005-07-13

I have been fairly impressed with Clutter so far. I am hoping it sees even broader adoption within the gnome comunity.

Reply Score: 3

One Point Oh?
by John Blink on Wed 29th Jul 2009 23:16 UTC
John Blink
Member since:
2005-10-11

How come it has reached that number whereas some projects have yet to do it, and we know and use them for so long?

Reply Score: 1

RE: One Point Oh?
by umccullough on Wed 29th Jul 2009 23:52 UTC in reply to "One Point Oh?"
umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

It's called marketing.

Reply Score: 6

RE: One Point Oh?
by Delgarde on Thu 30th Jul 2009 00:08 UTC in reply to "One Point Oh?"
Delgarde Member since:
2008-08-19

How come it has reached that number whereas some projects have yet to do it, and we know and use them for so long?


I don't know which other projects you have in mind, but remember, it's just a number. In theory, calling a library 1.x implies the API is now stable and can be relied on - Clutter seems to follow that convention. But not everyone does - Gstreamer, for example, declared API/ABI stability on the 0.10.x series, and seem to be holding to that.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: One Point Oh?
by sbergman27 on Thu 30th Jul 2009 01:29 UTC in reply to "RE: One Point Oh?"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

In theory, calling a library 1.x implies the API is now stable and can be relied on

Generally, that is only one condition that has to be met. A .0 release generally implies that the product is stable (doesn't crash a lot) and is pretty much feature complete. Only a few slipshod projekts with substandard QA use .0 to mean only that the abi is stable and that developers can get started.

Edited 2009-07-30 01:33 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: One Point Oh?
by Delgarde on Thu 30th Jul 2009 01:53 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: One Point Oh?"
Delgarde Member since:
2008-08-19

Generally, that is only one condition that has to be met. A .0 release generally implies that the product is stable (doesn't crash a lot) and is pretty much feature complete. Only a few slipshod projekts with substandard QA use .0 to mean only that the abi is stable and that developers can get started.


Sure - the 1.0 release implies a more general "ready for use".

But I disagree with your last sentence - it should actually be the projects with *good* QA for which a 1.0 release means only that the API is stable. If your code is crashing a lot, you shouldn't be doing 0.x releases, never mind a 1.0...

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: One Point Oh?
by ebassi on Thu 30th Jul 2009 07:30 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: One Point Oh?"
ebassi Member since:
2006-02-28

Generally, that is only one condition that has to be met. A .0 release generally implies that the product is stable (doesn't crash a lot) and is pretty much feature complete.


feature completeness in a library is a nonsense: features can be added without breaking API (look at GTK+), and crashers should be identified during the development cycles.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: One Point Oh?
by ebassi on Thu 30th Jul 2009 07:35 UTC in reply to "RE: One Point Oh?"
ebassi Member since:
2006-02-28

In theory, calling a library 1.x implies the API is now stable and can be relied on - Clutter seems to follow that convention. But not everyone does - Gstreamer, for example, declared API/ABI stability on the 0.10.x series, and seem to be holding to that.


GStreamer, like Clutter did during the 0.x development cycle, broke API compatibility with every minor release: applications written for 0.6 would have to be ported to 0.8, and applications written for 0.8 would have to be ported to 0.10 -- but applications written with 0.10.0 would still work with 0.10.2, 0.10.4, etc.

by the way, GStreamer developers are targeting a 1.0: http://noraisin.net/~jan/diary/?p=93

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: One Point Oh?
by Silent_Seer on Thu 30th Jul 2009 19:04 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: One Point Oh?"
Silent_Seer Member since:
2007-04-06

Sorry for being offtopic here but 0.10 after a 0.8??!!

Isn't that like going back to 0.1 because, 0.1 == 0.10. Well I hope developers these days don't get to skimp on mathematics (that too as basic as that). Ok well, feel free to mod me down everyone.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: One Point Oh?
by umccullough on Thu 30th Jul 2009 19:54 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: One Point Oh?"
umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

Sorry for being offtopic here but 0.10 after a 0.8??!!

Isn't that like going back to 0.1 because, 0.1 == 0.10. Well I hope developers these days don't get to skimp on mathematics (that too as basic as that). Ok well, feel free to mod me down everyone.


No because each number between periods is treated as a separate number. In the example you provided, 0 is the major number, 10 is the minor - you can also have build/revision numbers as well. Many version numbers have 3 or 4 different numeric indicators, giving you numbers like:

1.20.3

I know, it makes it painful to think about...sorry.

Reply Score: 2

RE: One Point Oh?
by ebassi on Thu 30th Jul 2009 07:27 UTC in reply to "One Point Oh?"
ebassi Member since:
2006-02-28

we reached the minimum amount of API we are confident to support for the whole duration of the 1.x cycle. so, every minor release of Clutter 1.x will be API and ABI compatible (meaning: only API additions and deprecations, no changes or removals) - as opposed to the API break at every minor release during the 0.x development over the last three and a half years.

Clutter is by no means Bug Free(tm), or Feature Complete(tm), but the API exposed right now will not change, so developers can safely create applications and have them running throughout the 1.x releases.

this is all that the 1.0 number means.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: One Point Oh?
by John Blink on Thu 30th Jul 2009 13:28 UTC in reply to "RE: One Point Oh?"
John Blink Member since:
2005-10-11

Thanks. Also to everyone else thanks.

Reply Score: 2

RE: One Point Oh?
by Laurence on Thu 30th Jul 2009 14:14 UTC in reply to "One Point Oh?"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

How come it has reached that number whereas some projects have yet to do it, and we know and use them for so long?


It's just a number. People read to much into version numbers these days.


Also, I'm finding it amusing that the vast majorety of posts in this thread are about a subject as dull as the numbering conventions and not about Intels graphics library

Reply Score: 4

Gnome & Clutter.
by AlexandreAM on Thu 30th Jul 2009 13:57 UTC
AlexandreAM
Member since:
2006-02-06

Hey, I guess that's the only way one will be able to say that Gnome 3.0 will have too much of cluttered interface, huh? ;)

Great work, guys. I love the idea behind Clutter and I hope it sees wide usage throughout the Gnome software ecosystem. It'll sure freshen up the face of the project a lot.

Reply Score: 2