Hi, "Stephen Perez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Could someone enumerate through the reasons why Hallvar's idea of > arbitrary window groups is not so good? It is kinda growing on me. I > think it goes a long way to keeping the DFB interfaces simple. IMO it doesn't make sense to manage four windows to decorate a fifth one. Event handling as well as window stack management would become a nightmare. I might be wrong but IMHO it makes more sense to special case the decorations so that they can be handled by a single structure. > Also, I've seen it asked on these lists several times: "what's next > for DFB?" How is this decided? On this list? It's been asked and answered just yesterday on directfb-users. > Just curious. Here's my two cents. I hope DFB stays small and > light, providing hooks for others to implement anything they might > want on top of it. I hope DFB doesn't become a full-fledged > windowing system, although I certainly hope there are plenty of > windowing systems built on DFB. Put another way, I would hate to see > DFB (the low-level graphics stuff and window stack) become tightly > coupled to any particular mechanism for managing windows, > cut-n-paste, etc. I'm just wondering what a road map for DFB looks > like. Does Convergence have long term requirements? convergence has the long term requirement of keeping it small and light but still featureful. convergence doesn't need window decorations, clipboard, drag'n'drop and all those other goodies a full-fledged windowing system has. On the other hand we'd like to make it possible to build a desktop on top of DirectFB. To achieve this we'll need a decent IPC framework and we need to provide the hooks for window management and decorations. Salut, Sven -- Info: To unsubscribe send a mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe directfb-dev" as subject.
