On Fri, 2002-10-18 at 10:26, Ian Walters wrote: > On Thu, 17 Oct 2002 9:30 pm, Andreas Kotes wrote: > > but this is not the way to go (I think). I think the correct approach > > ist stripping unnecessary layer after unnecessary layer, and shorten > > thought (and data!) pathes .. i.e. KDE with QT on XDirectFB on DirectFB > > is worse than Gnome with GTK-DirectFB on DirectFB ..
With the unnecessities gone what should we start building first? I am actually really growing on the idea of getting a cut down ver of gnome (or gtk?) running and using the system for the non-gui stuff like cut and paste as mentioned further down. Keep the system stuff in a library in DirectFB though? Keep it in a seperate library? Work on a cut down gnome? or just use gtk (the widget set) and the system for window management and other stuff? Should DirectFB have a builtin window manager, or be able to run multiple window managers (it would be nice to have one window manager with xml style sheets flexable enough to make it run like rat-piosion or run like enlightenment)? I like the intergrated nature of enlightenment. If you have a system library should it include a file-manager (I like the one out of enlightenment)? Should it also have Dialog box's like open and save and stuff? > This part I agree with. KDE with Qt on XDirectFB on DirectFB is worse than > Gnome with GTK-DirectFB on DirectFB. I don't see a point in looking at KDE > until Qt is ported. Even then the next step would be to port KDE. And as > sad as it may be, I don't see a Qt port happening soon. > > I say focus on Gnome not because I think it is better, but because you are > already halfway there. Avoid additional layers wherever possible. KDE on > XDirectFB isn't worth anything at all in the long run. > > The third reason to focus on Gnome is the best way to know an API/Framework is > right is to get something to use it. Gnome/GTK would be easier to test your > frame work until KDE/Qt is ported. > > > I just don't see a place for ANOTHER application framework. People > > complain about 'no applications' being available, and developers > > complain about being forced to trade-offs with each application > > framework. A new application framework would require developers for the > > application framework, developers for the applications, and users for > > the applications .. these users either have to install the framework > > themselves, or you've got to gain enough acceptance to be included in > > distributions, for which maintainers are needed, ....... and they'd be > > needed for years, maintenance-wise. > > Unless the framework was used by both Gnome and KDE for the features they had > in common, inter-operated, and applications developers just aimed at Gnome > and didn't even think about DirectFB. Things like copy and past, > starting/raising applications etc should be part of the system. Not the GUI > toolkit. > > Although I think this matches the 'busy bee' argument that Andreas Kotes made > later and snipped out. > > Ian. > > > -- > Info: To unsubscribe send a mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with > "unsubscribe directfb-dev" as subject. > -- Info: To unsubscribe send a mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe directfb-dev" as subject.
