Sign in Join

Live chat for Free Pascal, Lazarus, Delphi and every Pascal programmer.

Mailing lists / lazarus / 1999-06

[lazarus]

4 messages · 4 people ·

Reply by email Subscribe to this list Your subscription

Read-only archive. Use j and k to move between messages.

Sergio A. Kessler
to Cliff Baeseman: Yep I think we are barking up the same tree.... I say we program directly against XLib…

"Cliff Baeseman" el d�a Sun, 27 Jun 1999 17:36:04 -0500, escribi�:

Show quoted text 10 lines
Yep I think we are barking up the same tree.... I say we program directly against XLib instead of GTK and QT. This will allow us ultimate control over component rendering and event handling. We can place in the win32 primatives at the same time. I have both a windows and linux machine in which to test the code.... Much Much more work but alot cleaner and flexible solution... It would probably be alot less work in the long run.

yes, around 3000 AC ..

Sergio

Reply by email

Jeff Wormsley
to Cliff Baeseman: Yep I think we are barking up the same tree.... I say we program directly against XLib…
Michael A. Hess wrote
Cliff Baeseman wrote: > > I say we program directly against XLib instead of GTK and QT.

<snip>

It might be more work but it puts total control of the FCL output in OUR hands. Otherwise we are trying to write widgets in FPC that call widgets in another package.

<snip>

Any more opinions??????

Programming it at the XLIB level seems to make the most sense, on the surface. However, I am not experienced enough to really know for sure. One concern I would have is the look and feel of the programs created. Am I right to assume that even at the XLib level, the programs produced would still follow the look and feel of the desktop environment? Or do you need to program at the GTK/QT level to accomplish this?

Also, how much lower level do you need to get for component creation than messaging and a TCanvas equivalent?

Forgive my lurker ignorance...

Jeff.

Reply by email

Cliff Baeseman

Yep I think we are barking up the same tree....

I say we program directly against XLib instead of GTK and QT. This will allow us ultimate control over component rendering and event handling. We can place in the win32 primatives at the same time. I have both a windows and linux machine in which to test the code....

Much Much more work but alot cleaner and flexible solution...

It would probably be alot less work in the long run.

Cliff

Earlier message 57 lines
-----Original Message----- From: Michael A. Hess To: Date: Sunday, June 27, 1999 3:48 PM Subject: Re: [lazarus] >Baeseman, Cliff wrote: >> >> michael are you suggesting possibly going all the way down to the >> XLevel and starting there? > >I'm also interested. Is that what you mean Michael??? > >At this point we seemed to have been trying to leverage on the GTK or >KDE widget sets but we really don't have to. The component classes we >are establishing in the FCL already are a very good basis for it's own >widget set. After all that is what Delphi does. It mainly uses Windows >primatives to draw the components. Maybe we should just develop our own >widget set. > >I am for this if everybody else is. For one reason it will allow us to >make the FCL much more extensible. One of the reason I love Delphi is >that I can take an existing component redefine part of the components >methods such as the Draw method and create a totally new look for the >component without the need to code all the messaging and event stuff. IF >we still with something like GTK or anyother third party GUI we will not >be able to adjust the widget set from with FPC or the FCL. We will HAVE >to adjust GTK. > >This might take us longer to create the FPC FCL but it would allow us to >be more flexible with the porting issue. For example all that would need >to be changed in the Windows version would be the low level primatives >that need to do the drawing. We would call Windows API calls instead of >X11 calls. Maybe we only have to go as far as GDK for the primatives. >That would still tie use to GTK to a certain extent. > >Frankly I'm getting confused. :-\ > >More opinions??? > >We have close to 190 members on this list. Some of you are can assume >are future users and not necessary in this to help build lazarus. How do >you see yourself using FPC and the FCL in the future. Do you see >advantages to our doing this one way over another? > >-- >==== Programming my first best destiny! ==== > >Michael A. Hess Miracle Concepts, Inc. > http://www.miraclec.com > >_________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe: mail with > "unsubscribe" as the Subject > archives at http://www.miraclec.com/list_archives/lazarus >

Reply by email

Michael A. Hess
to Cliff Baeseman
Cliff Baeseman wrote 11 lines
Yep I think we are barking up the same tree.... I say we program directly against XLib instead of GTK and QT. This will allow us ultimate control over component rendering and event handling. We can place in the win32 primatives at the same time. I have both a windows and linux machine in which to test the code.... Much Much more work but alot cleaner and flexible solution... It would probably be alot less work in the long run.

It might be more work but it puts total control of the FCL output in OUR hands. Otherwise we are trying to write widgets in FPC that call widgets in another package. In GTK case the widgets we are calling aren't even OOP. Doing it this way in no way hinders anyone from also using FPC or the FCL with their favorite API (GTK, Qt, etc) it just means they don't have to. They would most likely be able to create a complete GUI program that could be delivered with out the requirement of any additional libraries except those that are part of X11 in the first place.

I inclined to try and climb up this particular barking tree. :-)

Any more opinions??????

==== Programming my first best destiny! ==== Michael A. Hess Miracle Concepts, Inc. http://www.miraclec.com

Reply by email