nanogui@linuxhacker.org

> Hi!
> 
> It's a time ago I had a look at FLTK and found it very satisfying. It would be
> great, if we could use it on top of NanoGui to write higher level UI-code.

Yes it is pretty cool. 

> It seems to me, that FLTK comes from the "X11-world". Is there any reason why
> not port it to nano-X instead of MicroWindows interface? (I'm familiar with X11,
> so sorry for that question - it should not instantiate any kind of interface-war
> ;-)

You're not going to :).  The simple answer is that Nano-X is not
compatible with X11.  It looks to me that FLTK was initially written
for X11, but basically Nano-X!=X11, and its questionable as to whether
it will try to be.  However, while microwindows!=Win32... its a LOT
closer.  Maybe someday we'll have a x11 compatibility libs type
thingee like Alan was talking about for microwindows, but we don't
now, nor will we have for some time to come more than likely.  (I'm
not holding my breath :>)

> A few weeks ago I was in the process of porting the PAL-Library (HP-LX Palmtops)
> to X11. I stopped this, because nobody needs this (I did know this before ;-).
> 
> I was very happy, that I was not the only one with having speed problems with
> images etc. In some kind X11 is very ugly. So I would prefer not to have the
> X11-API reimplemented (there are enough little X11-Systems) - I would more like
> to see some new ideas implemented. The same for Win32, but maybe it could be
> also very good to (more or less) easyly port some apps.
> 
> What about a server one could connect to like in X11 with IDs and to the same
> from Win32 via shared memory? 
>
> I don't understand so much about it, but I would like to see both interfaces
> developed further. 
> 
> Yesterday I tried to understand nano-X, but the only documentation was the old
> mini-x one. Some functions have been added since that old times. Could I support
> you by writing/updating some documentation about nano-X? 

That would be great.  This was one of my initial reasons for choosing
the microwindows base for the port.  Essentially win32 has lots of
docs, but Nano-X does not.  Until it does I'm pretty sure we won't see
much in the way of direct ports to Nano-X.

> I hate these monster systems (even for making documentation), but I started to
> get familiar with sgml to convert the nano-X documentation to SGML, then HTML,
> RTF etc.
> 
> Is somebody already working on this?

Not that I know of.

> Martin Doering
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: nanogui-unsubscribe@linuxhacker.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: nanogui-help@linuxhacker.org
>