> > On 03.08.2011, at 16:11, james wrote: > > > I do not know whether there are other serious fltk2 users. But I am = > sure that I am, I love the simplicity and design, but fltk2 is still = > pretty buggy, I tolerated it as long as it did not cause my application = > crashing. If there is no one wants to maintain it, I can help. > > So, I am trying to apply developer status for fltk2 here again. Yes, I = > applied multiple times before, but I had never gotten feedback. > >=20 > > Meantime, anyone please fix bug STR 2694. (I already have analysis of = > the bug there). > > Thanks > > Jim > > Hi Jim, > > only Mike can give you developer status. He's not developing for FLTK = > anymore, but maintains the site and access right.=20 > > I have no issue with taking another developer on board, but I would like = > you to know that FLTK 2 has not been developed any further in years. = > There have been a few activities and bug fixes, but you are basically in = > a dead end. With the first release of FLTK 3 we will likely close the = > FLTK 2 bug database and discourage SVN commits. > > Do you have a way to convert your existing app to FLTK 1.3 or - if you = > are brave, and you seem to be - to FLTK 3? Developer support would be = > great here. > > - Matthias > > > Matthias, In fact, I am OK with fltk1.3 or fltk3. I choosed fltk2 for its simplicity and performance. fltk1.3 seems much more complicated than fltk2 (just simply tell from the size of source files). I am developing a security printing graphic editor with fltk2 running in browser as google native client without modifying fltk2 library. Currently, with the help of fltk2, my graphic editor runs more than 100x faster than its competitor. I hope that fltk3 will not cause any performance loss. Thanks for your great work. Jim _______________________________________________ fltk-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.easysw.com/mailman/listinfo/fltk-dev
