nanogui: Thread: nanowm


[<<] [<] Page 1 of 2 [>] [>>]
Subject: nanowm
From: "Amit Kulkarni" ####@####.####
Date: 18 Dec 2000 03:56:49 -0000
Message-Id: <F58gHUgwHKT2qeSqk0q00001598@hotmail.com>

hi,

When can we expect the release of a newer version of the nano window 
manager(especially the one with can raise the lower windows by clicking 
inside the lower window or on the children of any of the lower partially 
hidden windows instead of the title bar)?

Also can anybody elaborate on the overhead caused by using C++ and providing 
an object oriented widget library instead of the few (existing) toolkits 
which us a procedural approach.

Regards,
Amit Kulkarni

Visit me at http://www.amitkulkarni.com

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Subject: Re: nanowm
From: Alex Holden ####@####.####
Date: 18 Dec 2000 10:45:57 -0000
Message-Id: <Pine.LNX.4.04.10012181027240.870-100000@hyperspace.linuxhacker.org>

On Mon, 18 Dec 2000, Amit Kulkarni wrote:
> Also can anybody elaborate on the overhead caused by using C++ and providing 
> an object oriented widget library instead of the few (existing) toolkits 
> which us a procedural approach.

The problem is the other way around- the only decent toolkit we have is
FLTK, which is written in C++ and (as far as I know) object oriented. We
don't yet have a usable widget set written in C, which is bad for very 
small systems which don't want to carry the extra overhead of the C++
library, and for bigots like me who just plain don't like C++ ;). There is
nanowidgets but the version of it included with microwindows isn't really
usable, Greg was talking about porting the toolkit from the W window 
system (assuming he can get the author to put it under a license of some 
sort), and there was a preliminary port of Gtk+ a while back but it
hasn't been maintained (it's based on the CVS Gtk+, which I can't even
get to build on native Linux/X11).

So far for things like nanotetris I've worked around the problem by simply
not using a toolkit, but it's not really a workable solution for larger
applications. Does anyone know of any small open source widget sets which
are written in C that we could port?

-- 
------- Alex Holden -------
http://www.linuxhacker.org/
 http://www.robogeeks.org/

Subject: Re: nanowm
From: Jakov af Wallby ####@####.####
Date: 18 Dec 2000 11:05:33 -0000
Message-Id: <Pine.LNX.3.96.1001218120209.3393A-100000@vmlinux.org>

On Mon, 18 Dec 2000, Alex Holden wrote:

> So far for things like nanotetris I've worked around the problem by simply
> not using a toolkit, but it's not really a workable solution for larger
> applications. Does anyone know of any small open source widget sets which
> are written in C that we could port?

Well, I may be WAY off limit now, but maybe it would not be too hard to
port the AROS gui
ftp://ftp.aros.org/pub/aros/snapshots/AROS-source-20001217.tgz
...

*looking a the directory structure of AROS*

or then again, it might be hard... :-)

Jakob


Subject: Re: nanowm
From: Alan Cox ####@####.####
Date: 18 Dec 2000 12:12:48 -0000
Message-Id: <E147zFL-0005UU-00@the-village.bc.nu>

> So far for things like nanotetris I've worked around the problem by simply
> not using a toolkit, but it's not really a workable solution for larger
> applications. Does anyone know of any small open source widget sets which
> are written in C that we could port?

That would be less work than converting fltk into C - no. Fltk is only lightly
C++ (it just uses the good bits of C++ so its basically C with classes).

Alan

Subject: Re: nanowm
From: Alex Holden ####@####.####
Date: 18 Dec 2000 12:39:04 -0000
Message-Id: <Pine.LNX.4.04.10012181222240.870-100000@hyperspace.linuxhacker.org>

On Mon, 18 Dec 2000, Jakov af Wallby wrote:
> port the AROS gui

Now there's an interesting thought...

> *looking a the directory structure of AROS*
> or then again, it might be hard... :-)

Yes, unfortunately it works quite differently internally to Nano-X- I
suspect it would probably require most of intuition to be rewritten from
scratch, and some things may be possible at all without gross hackery. It
would probably take significantly less work to make nwidgets usable than
to port intuition over.

-- 
------- Alex Holden -------
http://www.linuxhacker.org/
 http://www.robogeeks.org/


Subject: Re: nanowm
From: "Greg Haerr" ####@####.####
Date: 18 Dec 2000 17:38:57 -0000
Message-Id: <008e01c0691a$8a8063b0$6817dbd0@censoft.com>

: usable, Greg was talking about porting the toolkit from the W window
: system (assuming he can get the author to put it under a license of some

I have the Wt toolkit running on Nano-X.  Unlike W, which is
very ugly and gross, Wt seems to be simple and elegant.  It
provides all the basic widgets that a simple toolkit needs,
like edit, listbox, scrollbars, etc.

The reason that I like Wt is that it's about as object-oriented as one
can get in C.  For instance, there's a single create procedure,
wt_create().  This function takes a class name (actually, widget_template *)
to specify the widget to create.  It's very easy to build complex
widgets built from simple widgets.  Contrast this with GTK+,
which has a separate gtk_create_button, etc for every single
widget, and very little object orientation (at least in the namespace).

Wt's license is a little open for interpretation, however, which isn't
good.  The latest version is GPL, but the versions prior are available
as some sort of "free" license, which isn't really specified too well.

Wt is also documented very well.

Regards,

Greg

Subject: Re: nanowm
From: Alex Holden ####@####.####
Date: 18 Dec 2000 17:40:44 -0000
Message-Id: <Pine.LNX.4.04.10012181736380.870-100000@hyperspace.linuxhacker.org>

On Mon, 18 Dec 2000, Greg Haerr wrote:
> Wt's license is a little open for interpretation, however, which isn't
> good.  The latest version is GPL, but the versions prior are available
> as some sort of "free" license, which isn't really specified too well.

GPL or LGPL?

-- 
------- Alex Holden -------
http://www.linuxhacker.org/
 http://www.robogeeks.org/

Subject: Re: nanowm
From: "Greg Haerr" ####@####.####
Date: 18 Dec 2000 17:51:28 -0000
Message-Id: <00f401c0691c$4aa3bf60$6817dbd0@censoft.com>

: GPL or LGPL?

W is GPL'd, and Wt isn't really specified too well.

Greg

Subject: Re: nanowm
From: Wilken Boie ####@####.####
Date: 19 Dec 2000 19:22:11 -0000
Message-Id: <3A3FB632.E829D461@controlvideo.de>

Hi Greg,

I'm wondering whether you would be willing to share the 
experience of running Wt.
I searched the net but only found some old sources 
originating in '96. Didn't look into it yet, but it will
probably be _some_ work to (re)do till it works on Nano-X....
Do you have a working source or at least a pointer?

Thanks
Wilken


Greg Haerr wrote:
> 
> I have the Wt toolkit running on Nano-X.  Unlike W, which is
> very ugly and gross, Wt seems to be simple and elegant.  It
> provides all the basic widgets that a simple toolkit needs,
> like edit, listbox, scrollbars, etc.
>
Subject: Re: nanowm
From: "Greg Haerr" ####@####.####
Date: 20 Dec 2000 00:05:11 -0000
Message-Id: <019d01c06a19$b0fb9be0$6817dbd0@censoft.com>

: I searched the net but only found some old sources 
: originating in '96. 

Yep, that seems to be the only version out there.  And there's
no license in the tarball.



: probably be _some_ work to (re)do till it works on Nano-X....
: Do you have a working source or at least a pointer?

I have spent some time and got the basic widgets running, but
haven't posted the tarball yet.  Let me see if Kay Roemer responds
to an email, I'd like to get the license straightened out first.

Regards,

Greg

[<<] [<] Page 1 of 2 [>] [>>]


Powered by ezmlm-browse 0.20.