nanogui: GTK+ port to nano-X
Subject:
Re: GTK+ port to nano-X
From:
Jordan Crouse ####@####.####
Date:
11 May 2001 14:16:29 -0000
Message-Id: <01051108162401.23477@cosmic>
Maybe somebody can help me understand. wxWindows seems to be very similar
to Microwindows in many ways, especially in the way that it is (or soon will
be) a native framebuffer application.
Is it an windowing system and API rolled together, or is there a seperate
toolkit (much like we have FLNX)? If there is a seperate widget set,
wouldn't it be easier just to port that widget set to use Nano-X instead of
porting GTK so you can run the whole wxWindows environment in Nano-X?
Jordan
On Friday 11 May 2001 03:10, Julian Smart mentioned:
> 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: ####@####.####
