Hi, 2011/6/24 Astron <heinzless...@googlemail.com>
> Hi, > > > even though there were some improvements regarding gtk-integration in LO > 3.4 > > there are still some issues like the flickering you mentioned. Are there > any > > plans to rewrite LO in gtk or QT as part of the UI redesign? At least in > my > > opinion that would be a huge improvement, make LO look far more > professional > > and would probably make coding the new UI easier. > > How I understand it, LO is based on a "UI framework" that isn't native on > > any system and has to be extended for each OS, right? Wouldn't it also > > reduce coding work by simply delivering LO on Windows bundeled with gtk > like > > The Gimp? > > What do you think? > > You're correct, LibreOffice is based on something custom called VCL > and the only programs that use it are LibO, Ooo, and to a lesser > amount Symphony (which is based on Ooo). It has to be extended for > each other UI toolkit it is supposed to mimic. > Sadly, switching is not as easy as bundling GTK/Qt, else it would have > surely been done already. When there is so much UI to be taken care of > as in the case of LibO this would probably equal a complete rewrite of > LibO. While in the long run this may be worthwhile, it would mean > developers wouldn't do much besides rewriting everything in the next > few years. > A few questions: Would it really require a whole rewrite? Would it be possible to replace VCL with Qt gradually? Would maintaining and developing VCL really be advantageous compared to switching to Qt? Even when we're on the verge of doing a major UI overhaul, so a number of things will have to get rewritten anyway? It also means that instead of starting LibreOffice, the Document > Foundation would have been better spent its time and energy on > developing Koffice or Abiword/Gnumeric and brought these programs to a > state in which they could compete against Openoffice.org and Microsoft > Office. > Calligra Suite (KOffice) does seem quite promising, based on what I've read about its architecture. However, like a number of KDE applications, it suffers from a very messy user interface and a plethora of features awkwardly cobbled together. It'd be great if someone took it and made it usable, but I doubt that the Document Foundation will want to do that. I wonder, though, if maybe building on the Calligra base wouldn't have been a better idea. After all, the suite is very modular, so most edits could be contributed back, which would mean a lot less work for both projects. LibO could also expand its application portfolio, if it chose to. The Calligra base is very modern, so there would be a lot less code to cleanup (if any at all), no Java to remove, no VCL to support and upgrade, ... > > Astron. > > -- > Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to design+h...@global.libreoffice.org > Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette > List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/design/ > All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be > deleted > -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to design+h...@global.libreoffice.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/design/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
