nanogui: GTK+ port to nano-X
Subject:
Re: GTK+ port to nano-X
From:
"Amit Kulkarni" ####@####.####
Date:
11 May 2001 11:41:47 -0000
Message-Id: <F155VwcdZ06YO4OPXok00003892@hotmail.com>
I agree. Porting any API to nano-X will surely take time. WxWindows should
probably be ported not native to nano-X but like fltk, where it can be
easily adapted to any gui platform.
The gtk+ API on nano-X will be a big big leap, but in my opinion it will
take a long time to port and will need a very good design.
--
Amit Kulkarni
http://tinywidgets.sourceforge.net
>From: Julian Smart ####@####.####
>To: "Jeff Wood" ####@####.#### "Nanogui Post"
####@####.####
>Subject: Re: GTK+ port to nano-X
>Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 10:10:37 +0100
>
>At 01:23 PM 5/10/01 -0600, Jeff Wood wrote:
>>Hi,
>> I ran across an archived e-mail concerning a possible port
>>of GTK/GDk to nano-X. Some of the follow-up e-mail suggested a
>>"glue" layer be built between GTK and TinyWidgets (presumably
>>already ported?).
>> We are dedicated to running wxGTK (somehow) over nano-X.
>
>Cool :-) (The author for wxGTK, aka wxWindows for GTK+, is a colleague of
>mine on the wxWindows project, http://www.wxwindows.org.)
>
>>To the best of my knowledge, it seems like we could take one of
>>three approaches:
>>
>> 1) wait for wxGTK to port to its own widget set (apparently
>> in the works).
>
>Yes, that would be wxUniv or 'wxUniversal' (in that the widgets are all
>generic, non-native implementations and so easily ported to framebuffers
>etc.), sponsored by SciTech Software. Sounds like progress is good but
>there's a couple of months work or so before code is made available, and
>the code needs to be merged with current wxWin CVS which will be a
>challenge.
>
>> 2) use the GDK port available (at least partially)
>> in rel 1.3.1.
>> 3) provide/obtain a "glue" layer between GTK and TinyWidgets.
>>
>> I would be interested in any comments/opinions people might
>>have ("you'll all die", "what a stupid idea", etc).
>
>In cases (2) and (3) you'd be relying on at least 2 layers -- wxWindows +
>another -- whereas (1) has the advantage of being more direct and 'only'
>relying on a wxWindows implementation, which might simplify matters.
>However in all scenarios there is a fair bit of work to be done...
>
>Anyway if progress is demonstrated of wxWindows running on Nano-X, I'm sure
>guys here at Red Hat will be interested, since we are already using
>wxWindows on the host side of eCos, and there will no doubt be client &
>internal interest in writing C++ GUI applications for eCos/Nano-X.
>
>Regards,
>
>Julian
>--
>Red Hat UK Ltd, Unit 200 Rustat House, 62 Clifton Road, Cambridge, UK. CB1
>7EG Tel: +44 (1223) 271063
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: ####@####.####
>For additional commands, e-mail: ####@####.####
>
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
