Hi, On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 01:38:42PM +0200, Matthias Melcher wrote: > On 13.04.2010, at 09:55, Nikita Egorov wrote: > > > Hi, Matthias. > > > >> I know we had DirectFB support from a third party at some point. Does > >> anyone know what happened to it? > > > > Unfortunately, last months I had no time to improve the dfb port. > > Though I never forget about it and have some ideas. > > But I know nothing about other developers using fltk-dfb. Latest > > feedbacks which I had received a few months ago from man working with > > omap chip(?) and it was all... > > Do you plan something? > > I am seeing requests for UI libraries that avoid the overhead of X11 for > embedded devices. I could see FLTK with DirectFB here as a very nice option. > With the new device-based approach of FLTK 1.3 to graphics, FB support could > become an integral part of the FLTK main branch.
'decreasing the overhead of X11 on embedded devices' seem a popular phrase. In my experience, moving away from X11 primarily increases the development overhead. An initial footprint decrease is accomplished, to be soon eliminated once the developer gets all fonts right, and other standard X11 functions have been duplicated. Still, the boot time does not seem to differ that much between TinyX & other systems, like a Qtopia etc. I was not able to get FLTK on DFB running yet. I put TinyX on the device. So I'm not questioning your idea, but can you tell some more about the effective savings? I'm pretty curious. Kurt _______________________________________________ fltk-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.easysw.com/mailman/listinfo/fltk-dev
