On 06-Jun-2002 Derek Cunningham wrote: > On Thu, Jun06,02 11:38, Chris Grossmann wrote: >> Derek Cunningham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> typed: >> > Yeah... further to this, to whom to we cater? The users, or the power >> > users? >> > The featureists, or the minimalists? >> >> The authors. :) >> > > Maybe... but I don't think this is the case. > > Right now authoring blackbox is closed (true, we can produce patches, and we > have complete access to CVS, but if an addition is made by someone outside > of The Blackbox Authors group, and something is changed in BB that breaks > that patch, then the patch author has to re-write it). This may end up being > the case for all time... however I hold hope that the bblib separation will > give patchers great freedoms over the control of blackbox. >
the lib won't help you much. It is meant like qt is to KDE. It provides the nuts and bolts, all of the policy will be in the applications that use it. The goal is to make writing a new bbtool dirt simple and cut down on the: cp -a bbcool-1.0 bbmine-1.1 edit a few files in bbmine release which is how every bbtool thus far has been written. So every tool has the same bugs but they have to be fixed one at a time. Each tool has a different set of bugs because not all of them are fixed in every application. In theory forks like openbox could also base themselves on the lib and implement their own policies.
