nanogui: Thread: Microwindow+GTK or FLTK??

Hello All,
I recently start using Microwindows and now want to do lot of application
development on top of it specially for embedded devices.

For getting more user friendly GUI's am thinking to use either FTLK or GTK.

So can anybody suggest me which is more compatible with Microwindow.

Thanks in Advance

-- 
Siji Sunny
Sr.Software Engineer

Net4Uonline Pvt. Ltd.
http://www.net4uonline.com/
Tel : +91 22 40108555
Fax: +91 22 22186274

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Siji Sunny ####@####.####
Date: Thu, May 14, 2009 at 11:52 AM
Subject: Microwindow+GTK or FLTK??
To: ####@####.####


Hello All,
I recently start using Microwindows and now want to do lot of application
development on top of it specially for embedded devices.

For getting more user friendly GUI's am thinking to use either FTLK or GTK.

So can anybody suggest me which is more compatible with Microwindow.

Thanks in Advance

-- 
Siji Sunny
Sr.Software Engineer

Net4Uonline Pvt. Ltd.
http://www.net4uonline.com/
Tel : +91 22 40108555
Fax: +91 22 22186274



-- 
Siji Sunny
Sr.Software Engineer

Net4Uonline Pvt. Ltd.
http://www.net4uonline.com/
Tel : +91 22 40108555
Fax: +91 22 22186274

On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 11:52:07AM +0530, Siji Sunny wrote:
> I recently start using Microwindows and now want to do lot of
> application development on top of it specially for embedded devices.
> 
> For getting more user friendly GUI's am thinking to use either FTLK or
> GTK.
> 
> So can anybody suggest me which is more compatible with Microwindow.

I believe the preferred method is using the XtoNX.h header, which
translates X calls to nano-X calls.  I have read success reports with
FLTK using this method, and it wouldn't surprise me if GTK works
similarly.

-- 
  Aaron J. Grier | "Not your ordinary poofy goof." | ####@####.####

: I believe the preferred method is using the XtoNX.h header, which
: translates X calls to nano-X calls.  I have read success reports with
: FLTK using this method, and it wouldn't surprise me if GTK works
: similarly.

Aaron - No, the XtoNX.h header was used for very early
versions of NXLIB, which required recompilation of X11
libraries and binaries.  The current NXLIB works by replacing
libX11.so and does not require any re-compilation of the
application.

This has been tested for FLTK v1.x which works great.  It
has also been tested with GTK, but there may be more work
to be done in some cases.  Thus, I would suggest using FLTK
for use with nano-X.  If the application runs on X11, using
FLTK with NXLIB should allow it to port unmodified to nano-X.

Regards,

Greg

On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 07:26:16PM -0600, Greg Haerr wrote:
> Aaron - No, the XtoNX.h header was used for very early versions of
> NXLIB, which required recompilation of X11 libraries and binaries.
> The current NXLIB works by replacing libX11.so and does not require
> any re-compilation of the application.
> 
> This has been tested for FLTK v1.x which works great.  It has also
> been tested with GTK, but there may be more work to be done in some
> cases.  Thus, I would suggest using FLTK for use with nano-X.  If the
> application runs on X11, using FLTK with NXLIB should allow it to port
> unmodified to nano-X.

I think this is the second time I've made this mistake.  (=

does nano-X provide X headers proper, or are these "borrowed" from the
host installation?

-- 
  Aaron J. Grier | "Not your ordinary poofy goof." | ####@####.####

We are using FLTK 2.0.0 with nano-X 0.91. These are the versions that came
bundled with our embedded OS distribution (uClinux).

As for the visual results, I have only good things to report. Anti-aliased
true type fonts with Freetype 2.3.5 look amazing. FLTK 2 allows for theming
and provides lots of widgtes to choose from. FLTK is also very well
documented and (I find it) very stable.

As for memory requirements, our nano-X configuration uses about 2MB without
any application running, and about 11 MB when our application is running on
its full. Maybe it's a little heavy, but the looks are worth it.   ;-)   We
also use nanowm (the window manager) which takes up 260kB. Anyway, I am sure
you can make everything fit into a more constrained system, if you have to.

As for the overall speed, our 32-bit Nios II processor runs at 100 MHz and
everything feels very fast and responsive, unless:
   - you need to draw large amounts of text on the screen
   - you use some big (size 48 and above) truetype fonts
   - you need to switch between windows very often

Overall, I am very pleased with the nano-X + FLTK 2 combination.

Good luck,

Ricardo.

2009/5/14 Siji Sunny ####@####.####

> Hello All,
> I recently start using Microwindows and now want to do lot of application
> development on top of it specially for embedded devices.
>
> For getting more user friendly GUI's am thinking to use either FTLK or GTK.
>
> So can anybody suggest me which is more compatible with Microwindow.
>
> Thanks in Advance
>
> --
> Siji Sunny
> Sr.Software Engineer
>
> Net4Uonline Pvt. Ltd.
> http://www.net4uonline.com/
> Tel : +91 22 40108555
> Fax: +91 22 22186274
>



-- 
----------------------------------------------
Ricardo Pereira Jasinski
####@####.####
Tel: (41) 9955-2852

LME - Laboratório de Microeletrônica da UTFPR
   UTFPR Microelectronics Lab
   www.lme.cpdtt.cefetpr.br
   Tel: +55 41 3310 4756

On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 8:11 AM, Ricardo Jasinski ####@####.####

> We are using FLTK 2.0.0 with nano-X 0.91. These are the versions that came
> bundled with our embedded OS distribution (uClinux).
>
> As for the visual results, I have only good things to report. Anti-aliased
> true type fonts with Freetype 2.3.5 look amazing. FLTK 2 allows for theming
> and provides lots of widgtes to choose from. FLTK is also very well
> documented and (I find it) very stable.
>
> As for memory requirements, our nano-X configuration uses about 2MB without
> any application running, and about 11 MB when our application is running on
> its full. Maybe it's a little heavy, but the looks are worth it.   ;-)   We
> also use nanowm (the window manager) which takes up 260kB. Anyway, I am
> sure
> you can make everything fit into a more constrained system, if you have to.
>
> As for the overall speed, our 32-bit Nios II processor runs at 100 MHz and
> everything feels very fast and responsive, unless:
>   - you need to draw large amounts of text on the screen
>   - you use some big (size 48 and above) truetype fonts
>   - you need to switch between windows very often
>
> Overall, I am very pleased with the nano-X + FLTK 2 combination.
>
> Good luck,
>
Is it possible to bind FLTK with C and Python

>
>
> Ricardo.
>
> 2009/5/14 Siji Sunny ####@####.####
>
> > Hello All,
> > I recently start using Microwindows and now want to do lot of application
> > development on top of it specially for embedded devices.
> >
> > For getting more user friendly GUI's am thinking to use either FTLK or
> GTK.
> >
> > So can anybody suggest me which is more compatible with Microwindow.
> >
> > Thanks in Advance
> >
> > --
> > Siji Sunny
> > Sr.Software Engineer
> >
> > Net4Uonline Pvt. Ltd.
> > http://www.net4uonline.com/
> > Tel : +91 22 40108555
> > Fax: +91 22 22186274
> >
>
>
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------
> Ricardo Pereira Jasinski
> ####@####.####
> Tel: (41) 9955-2852
>
> LME - Laboratório de Microeletrônica da UTFPR
>   UTFPR Microelectronics Lab
>   www.lme.cpdtt.cefetpr.br
>   Tel: +55 41 3310 4756
>



-- 
Siji Sunny
Sr.Software Engineer

Net4Uonline Pvt. Ltd.
http://www.net4uonline.com/
Tel : +91 22 40108555
Fax: +91 22 22186274

: does nano-X provide X headers proper, or are these "borrowed" from the
: host installation?

It was decided that the X headers should be supplied by the installed
X11, or from X11 source.  In this way, NXLIB is built to match the
existing X11 installation, thus requiring no recompile of X11 application
binaries on the target platform.

Regards,

Greg

On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 04:02:33PM -0600, Greg Haerr wrote:
> > does nano-X provide X headers proper, or are these "borrowed" from
> > the host installation?
> 
> It was decided that the X headers should be supplied by the installed
> X11, or from X11 source.  In this way, NXLIB is built to match the
> existing X11 installation, thus requiring no recompile of X11
> application binaries on the target platform.

this only works if the host and target are binary compatible, which
isn't always the case.  in my case host is running Linux (or some other
unix) and the target is running RTEMS.  (RTEMS does not currently have a
native X11 port.)

do you have any suggestions for porting third-party graphics toolkits
(Qt, FLTK, etc) in this situation other than a direct-to-nano-X port?

-- 
  Aaron J. Grier | "Not your ordinary poofy goof." | ####@####.####

: this only works if the host and target are binary compatible, which
: isn't always the case.  in my case host is running Linux (or some other
: unix) and the target is running RTEMS.  (RTEMS does not currently have a
: native X11 port.)
: 
: do you have any suggestions for porting third-party graphics toolkits
: (Qt, FLTK, etc) in this situation other than a direct-to-nano-X port?

Even when the host and target aren't binary compatible, and
the target doesn't have an X11 port, using NXLIB with toolkits
written for Xlib (like FLTK and GTK+) can be a good idea.
The NXLIB code essential re-maps the Xlib calls to nano-X,
and can be ported completely without X11 sources or binaries
present. You'd just have to grab the Xlib.h and other files from
your desktop and use them when compiling nano-X and the
graphics toolkits.

The big advantage here is that you can use tested X11 toolkits
without having to specially port to nano-X.

Regards,

Greg