On 04/12/12 15:35, Domingo Alvarez Duarte wrote:
> When I pointed FLU Widgets and thinking a bit about it, why not talk with
> it's authors and ask to include then to FLTK instead of reinventing the
> wheel ?
..because Fl_Tree has already been written and merged,
and FLU is abandoned code that hasn't been updated since 2004?
I liked FLU very much, but it seemed a bit heavy for
my needs, one reason I wrote my own. I felt I could make
Fl_Tree tighter code-wise, and really just wanted a
hierarchical version of Fl_Browser, with the option to make
items from FLTK widgets.
But mainly, I don't like taking over other people's code :P
FLU seemed a long way from a merge to FLTK, but if you'd
like to take over FLU, I'm sure it'd be appreciated by
the folks that use it. But I think you'd have to fix its bugs,
continue its support, and decouple Flu_Tree_Browser from the
rest of FLU, and make the code follow FLTK code and doc compliance.
I think it would also need to be relicensed; IIRC FLU lacks
the FLTK exceptions for eg. linking, and so to re-license it
would mean getting an OK from the original dev.
But is Fl_Tree so far off from what you need that you
can't submit patches?
Granted it's tricky to submit patches if they're too far
reaching, or break the API/ABI.
We now have some flexibility with the ABI, but we still
have to remain backwards compatible with the API when it
comes to fixes/features.
_______________________________________________
fltk-bugs mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.easysw.com/mailman/listinfo/fltk-bugs
