nanogui: Status?
Subject:
RE: Status?
From:
Greg Haerr ####@####.####
Date:
8 Sep 1999 00:08:33 -0000
Message-Id: <01BEF95B.54C21BE0.greg@censoft.com>
On Tuesday, September 07, 1999 2:03 PM, Alex Holden ####@####.#### wrote:
: On Tue, 7 Sep 1999, Vidar Hokstad wrote:
: > On Tue, 7 Sep 1999, Greg Haerr wrote:
: > > I think the best way to go for nano-X would be the approach I took
: > > for MicroWindows.
: > I'm not sure I agree with this. X is fairly complex compared to what it
: > should be possible to run Mozilla on.
:
: I agree. X is a very large, complex API. I think we should just extend the
: Nano-X API as much as is needed, and avoid the more complex parts of X.
:
I think you all may not get my point. First, I suggest Xlib, not X.
Xlib is the much smaller subset of X that deals with really low level drawing.
Secondly, remember that nano-X is basically lifted wholly from mini-X. It's
inventor used almost exactly the same function names and arguments as Xlib
when creating the API. So it already is almost there. Except that he changed
the names to GrYYY rather than XYYY. If the names were Xlib compatible,
a large number of low-level X programs would port with very few changes.
The point is that the nano-X api is *already* Xlib compliant, but noone
realizes it, and that further slows development. I'm not suggesting that
the API has to remain Xlib compatible, but when you've already got 90% of
your API compliant, why not?
Greg
