nanogui: Thread: NanoX version 0.3 released

On Mon, 10 May 1999, Greg Haerr wrote:
> As soon as Ben finishes the bogl library integration, we'll also support
> 24 and 32bpp modes...

We'll want 4bpp, 1bpp, and maybe 2bpp modes too soon, I think.

> 	I know I'm being obtuse, but, what is GDK?

GDK is the layer which goes between GTK+ and Xlib (or the Windoze API in
the case of the Windoze GTK+ port). If we port GDK to Nano-X, we should be
able to run GTK+ (and hence the GTK+ version of Mozilla) without
modification (in theory).

> 	Nano-X is still very very primitive, and I haven't made it match
> the Xlib standard yet.

I'm not convinced we really need to, though making it a bit closer to Xlib
in order to ease the porting of things like GDK couldn't hurt.

--------------- Linux- the choice of a GNU generation. --------------
: Alex Holden (M1CJD)- Caver, Programmer, Land Rover nut, Radio Ham :
-------------------- http://www.linuxhacker.org/ --------------------

Hi,

On Tue, 11 May 1999, Alex Holden wrote:

> On Mon, 10 May 1999, Greg Haerr wrote:
> > 	I know I'm being obtuse, but, what is GDK?
> 
> GDK is the layer which goes between GTK+ and Xlib (or the Windoze API in
> the case of the Windoze GTK+ port). If we port GDK to Nano-X, we should be
> able to run GTK+ (and hence the GTK+ version of Mozilla) without
> modification (in theory).
> 
> > 	Nano-X is still very very primitive, and I haven't made it match
> > the Xlib standard yet.
> 
> I'm not convinced we really need to, though making it a bit closer to Xlib
> in order to ease the porting of things like GDK couldn't hurt.

How about providing a GDK interface to Nano-X ? This would leave out
another layer between GDK and nano-X !

And there would no porting be needed either!

> 
> --------------- Linux- the choice of a GNU generation. --------------
> : Alex Holden (M1CJD)- Caver, Programmer, Land Rover nut, Radio Ham :
> -------------------- http://www.linuxhacker.org/ --------------------
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ####@####.####
> For additional commands, e-mail: ####@####.####
> 

- alex

Alexander Peuchert
####@####.####
http://www.peuchert.de ( not very interesting yet ;-) )

On Tue, 11 May 1999, Alexander Peuchert wrote:
> How about providing a GDK interface to Nano-X ? This would leave out
> another layer between GDK and nano-X !

Could you run that by me again? We weren't thinking of providing an Xlib
layer, just making the Nano-X calls look similar to Xlib calls so that
Xlib programs are easier to port...

--------------- Linux- the choice of a GNU generation. --------------
: Alex Holden (M1CJD)- Caver, Programmer, Land Rover nut, Radio Ham :
-------------------- http://www.linuxhacker.org/ --------------------

On Tue, 11 May 1999, Alex Holden wrote:

> On Tue, 11 May 1999, Alexander Peuchert wrote:
> > How about providing a GDK interface to Nano-X ? This would leave out
> > another layer between GDK and nano-X !
> 
> Could you run that by me again? We weren't thinking of providing an Xlib
> layer, just making the Nano-X calls look similar to Xlib calls so that
> Xlib programs are easier to port...

Well, if we provide something 'similar' like Xlib, why don't we use GDK.
It's 'similar' to Xlib and X apps should be easily ported to it ;-)

And there wouldn't be another low-level API.

> 
> --------------- Linux- the choice of a GNU generation. --------------
> : Alex Holden (M1CJD)- Caver, Programmer, Land Rover nut, Radio Ham :
> -------------------- http://www.linuxhacker.org/ --------------------
> 

- alex

Alexander Peuchert
####@####.####
http://www.peuchert.de ( not very interesting yet ;-) )

On Tue, 11 May 1999, Alexander Peuchert wrote:
> > Could you run that by me again? We weren't thinking of providing an Xlib
> > layer, just making the Nano-X calls look similar to Xlib calls so that
> > Xlib programs are easier to port...
> Well, if we provide something 'similar' like Xlib, why don't we use GDK.
> It's 'similar' to Xlib and X apps should be easily ported to it ;-)

Ah, so you mean instead of making nano-X look like Xlib so GDK is easier
to port to it, make nano-X look like GDK so the compatibility layer will
be very small?

--------------- Linux- the choice of a GNU generation. --------------
: Alex Holden (M1CJD)- Caver, Programmer, Land Rover nut, Radio Ham :
-------------------- http://www.linuxhacker.org/ --------------------

On Tue, 11 May 1999, Alex Holden wrote:

> On Tue, 11 May 1999, Alexander Peuchert wrote:
> > > Could you run that by me again? We weren't thinking of providing an Xlib
> > > layer, just making the Nano-X calls look similar to Xlib calls so that
> > > Xlib programs are easier to port...
> > Well, if we provide something 'similar' like Xlib, why don't we use GDK.
> > It's 'similar' to Xlib and X apps should be easily ported to it ;-)
> 
> Ah, so you mean instead of making nano-X look like Xlib so GDK is easier
> to port to it, make nano-X look like GDK so the compatibility layer will
> be very small?

If I understand you correctly, you are planning nanoX like this.

nano server <-> nano API <-> GDK to NanoLib <-> GTK+ <-> all GTK apps


My proposal would be:

nano server <-> nano API looking like GDK <-> GTK+ <-> all GTK apps

and additionally:

nano server <-> nano API looking like GDK <-> my toolkit <-> other apps

or:

nano server <-> nano API looking like GDK <-> ported apps from Xlib

okay ?


> 
> --------------- Linux- the choice of a GNU generation. --------------
> : Alex Holden (M1CJD)- Caver, Programmer, Land Rover nut, Radio Ham :
> -------------------- http://www.linuxhacker.org/ --------------------
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ####@####.####
> For additional commands, e-mail: ####@####.####
> 

- alex

Alexander Peuchert
####@####.####
http://www.peuchert.de ( not very interesting yet ;-) )

On Tue, 11 May 1999, Alexander Peuchert wrote:
> If I understand you correctly, you are planning nanoX like this.
> nano server <-> nano API <-> GDK to NanoLib <-> GTK+ <-> all GTK apps

That was the original idea, yes. You could replace "GDK to NanoLIB" with
something smaller, or an application, if you were short on memory.
 
> My proposal would be:
> nano server <-> nano API looking like GDK <-> GTK+ <-> all GTK apps

Well, if we're going to do a GDK layer, we might as well make it _exactly_
like GDK. How about:

> nano server <-> nano API looking like a cut down GDK <-> thin GDK
compatibility layer, other toolkit or app <-> other apps

Ie. make the nano-X interface as close to GDK as possible without bloating
it with non-essential GDK features.

--------------- Linux- the choice of a GNU generation. --------------
: Alex Holden (M1CJD)- Caver, Programmer, Land Rover nut, Radio Ham :
-------------------- http://www.linuxhacker.org/ --------------------

On Tue, 11 May 1999, Alex Holden wrote:

> On Tue, 11 May 1999, Alexander Peuchert wrote:
> > If I understand you correctly, you are planning nanoX like this.
> > nano server <-> nano API <-> GDK to NanoLib <-> GTK+ <-> all GTK apps
> 
> That was the original idea, yes. You could replace "GDK to NanoLIB" with
> something smaller, or an application, if you were short on memory.
>  
> > My proposal would be:
> > nano server <-> nano API looking like GDK <-> GTK+ <-> all GTK apps
> 
> Well, if we're going to do a GDK layer, we might as well make it _exactly_
> like GDK. How about:
> 
> > nano server <-> nano API looking like a cut down GDK <-> thin GDK
> compatibility layer, other toolkit or app <-> other apps

Well, with a cut down GDK not exactly like the original GDK, GTK apps wont
run ...

> 
> Ie. make the nano-X interface as close to GDK as possible without bloating
> it with non-essential GDK features.

You/We could provide the complete GDK API, but provide dummy functions for
parts that aren't supported.
( Alan Cox told me, that some madman ported GDK to curses. So it should be
doable to leave out functionality ... )

> 
> --------------- Linux- the choice of a GNU generation. --------------
> : Alex Holden (M1CJD)- Caver, Programmer, Land Rover nut, Radio Ham :
> -------------------- http://www.linuxhacker.org/ --------------------
> 

Again my proposal:

nano server <-> nano/GDK API <-> simple apps
nano server <-> nano/GDK API <-> small toolkit <-> apps for small comps
nano server <-> nano/GDK API <-> GTK <-> many cool apps
nano server <-> nano/GDK API <-> GTK <-> GNOME <-> really, realy memory consuming apps

The small toolkit is proposed, as GTK eats up 10meg of diskspace and
wouldn't be appropriate for a PDA.

- alex

Alexander Peuchert
####@####.####
http://www.peuchert.de ( not very interesting yet ;-) )

On Tue, 11 May 1999, Alexander Peuchert wrote:
> > > nano server <-> nano API looking like a cut down GDK <-> thin GDK
> > compatibility layer, other toolkit or app <-> other apps
> Well, with a cut down GDK not exactly like the original GDK, GTK apps wont
> run ...

Note the "thin GDK compatibility layer". Don't put GDK itself into the
nano-X client library, just something which is close enough that the extra
library needed to make it into a full GDK API is very small, but without
any of the unnecessary bloat.

> You/We could provide the complete GDK API, but provide dummy functions for
> parts that aren't supported.

Why not provide the complete GDK API, but with the part inappropriate for
nano-X itself in a seperate library?

--------------- Linux- the choice of a GNU generation. --------------
: Alex Holden (M1CJD)- Caver, Programmer, Land Rover nut, Radio Ham :
-------------------- http://www.linuxhacker.org/ --------------------

On Tue, 11 May 1999, Alex Holden wrote:

> On Tue, 11 May 1999, Alexander Peuchert wrote:
> > > > nano server <-> nano API looking like a cut down GDK <-> thin GDK
> > > compatibility layer, other toolkit or app <-> other apps
> > Well, with a cut down GDK not exactly like the original GDK, GTK apps wont
> > run ...
> 
> Note the "thin GDK compatibility layer". Don't put GDK itself into the
> nano-X client library, just something which is close enough that the extra
> library needed to make it into a full GDK API is very small, but without
> any of the unnecessary bloat.
> 
> > You/We could provide the complete GDK API, but provide dummy functions for
> > parts that aren't supported.
> 
> Why not provide the complete GDK API, but with the part inappropriate for
> nano-X itself in a seperate library?

Well, if we split the GDK API, it wont be GDK anymore.
I prefer the approach of only providing a GDK API for nano-X, because it
is more elegant. Just one lib. See:

gcc some_code.c -o an_app -lnanoX // for native apps

gcc gtk_code.c -o gtk_app -lnanoX -lgtk // for GTK apps

less lib code!


Another thing: what is >inappropriate< for nano-X ?

> 
> --------------- Linux- the choice of a GNU generation. --------------
> : Alex Holden (M1CJD)- Caver, Programmer, Land Rover nut, Radio Ham :
> -------------------- http://www.linuxhacker.org/ --------------------
> 

- alex

Alexander Peuchert
####@####.####
http://www.peuchert.de ( not very interesting yet ;-) )