Tony Peden writes: > >Norman Vine wrote: > >> David Megginson writes: >> >>>Olivier Grisel writes: >>> >>> >>>>So if we develop such user friendly tools, it might be a >>>>good idea to choose only one gui style so as they get all >>>>the same style. >>>> >>>You work sounds great. I see no harm in having both Java and Python >>>GUIs -- I'm no Python fan myself (though there are other fgfs >>>developers who are), and Java will make life a lot easier for Mac and >>>Windows users who probably already have Java on their systems but >>>would run away screaming if we asked them to install Python or Perl. >>> >> >> Well perhaps but ... those that did the 'One Click' installation >> would have a GUI they could probably 'customize' for themselves :-). >> >> FWIW - IMHO writing the External GUI in JAVA is tantamount to >> writting it in C++ > > >Like there would be something wrong with writing in C++ ?
No - I agree with David that the more external GUI's the better This flexibility was in fact one of our prime reasons for implementing the network interface. My point was that the beauty of having a 'scriptable' GUI was that a user, not a developer / programmer, should be able to personalize their GUI easily, not so sure this would be possible with a C++ GUI. FWIW - What I think would likely be the 'pentultimate' system is a Tool that read the existing XML configuration files and automagically created a GUI from what it found. This is sort of what the HTML interface to the properties does now Cheers Norman _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
