nanogui: ideology of flnx
Subject:
Re: [nanogui] ideology of flnx
From:
"Greg Haerr" ####@####.####
Date:
13 Jul 2001 16:14:02 -0000
Message-Id: <0cb701c10bb5$5f862ee0$3aba46a6@xmission.com>
: I was wondering as to the ideology of the FLTK / Nano-X port. It seems
: very curious - it was branched off of FLTK 1.0.7 (over a year ago) and it
: seems as though there has been no effort to keep it synced. Is this
: intentional? That is, is FLNX a distinctly different beast, or has the
: effort simply not been made to keep it current?
We have planned from the beginning to have the Nano-X port of
FLTK go back to the FLTK maintainers for permanent inclusion.
However, since we're a few revs behind (and they're actually at
2.x now), we need to upgrade before they'll likely accept it.
We're going to be starting a project soon where we'll be moving to
the latest 2.x version of FLTK, and make it work with Nano-X,
with resubmission to fltk.org.
:
: On the one hand, if it were kept current, it is conceivable that nano-x
: could be one of the standard build options for FLTK. On the other hand, if
: FLNX is distinct, then why bother #ifdef'ing all of the NANO_X code, and
: not simply replace what exists with what it should be specifically for
: Nano-X?
I very much dislike the underchassis of FLTK, with all of it's crude
multiple #ifdefs for win32, X and now, nano-X. But that's likely to
remain, since that's the way the FLTK folks wrote it, and they've kept
that approach in 2.x.
Finally, the current FLNX underchassis is a bit messy, since it was
written over a year ago, just when Nano-X was becoming actually
capable of running real graphics programs. This will be cleaned up
in the 2.x release.
Regards,
Greg
