nanogui: A few process-related questions about uWin vs. nano-X
Subject:
Re: A few process-related questions about uWin vs. nano-X
From:
"Greg Haerr" ####@####.####
Date:
13 Apr 2000 22:47:49 -0000
Message-Id: <0d9801bfa599$e8287c90$3017dbd0@censoft.com>
: 1) Has any thought been given on uWin side of things to things like a
shared
: library, application loaders, etc? At the moment it seems like there can
: only be one application actually running, though that application can open
: as many windows as it would like. Is this a pretty fair summary of the
: situation?
I had some initial plans to add application loading capability to
Microwindows,
which would be alot easier than adding the client/server RPC marshalling to
every API entry point. I think we need to address and solve this problem
fairly soon.
: 2) Alternately -- as far as I understand, at least, currently the FLTK
port is
: only
: targetting the Microwindows side of nanogui. Is anyone working on a
nano-X
: port of FLTK, or is the expectation that gdk/gtk will fill things in
: acceptably on
: that side? It seems as though nano-X has much better support for a
: multiple-app
: sort of model right now.
Nano-X definitely has better support for a multiple-app model right now.
It would be fairly straight-forward to hack FLTK towards Nano-X from
win32. Shane originally started the port to FLTK, but has been rather
silent on the port lately...
The other problem is that FLTK is very badly written in the OS-interface
area, and there's lots of kludgy code that's #ifdef'd all over the place
between X and Windows. GTK+ uses GDK as the graphics device
interface layer and is very clean.
Regards,
Greg
