Greg, very good timeplan :) > I get the idea that if UTF-8 were added to the stable 1.1 then more > users would attracted to fltk, and would stay with fltk.
Afaik, most of people are using (or started to use) 2.0 because of utf-8 support. As I could see, no one addressed _any_ other reasons beside above. No one reported that they find out current layout scheme too cool they can't live without; nor anyone said that xrender backend makes their life easier. Yes, I looks like 1.x continuale will be (and it should be :)), but I will try to address here (and would ask about comments) for deeper issues behind 2.0, which imho should be discussed asap before things gets complicated. First of all, all 1.x custom widgets will be broken and will (mostly) have to be written from the scratch. This is due totally different layout scheme with addition of different way widgets are drawn; althought, Bill redesigned it as it could do the best. Imho, next major version should be evolution _not_ revolution, which means that success of 2.0 will depend on how much are users willing to port their current code to it, and the current situation is not very well. For example, last night I tried (as more detailed test) to port my layout group in 1.x; after few hours of messing I leave that for a next day. And, this is how it should be: http://developer.gnome.org/doc/API/2.0/gtk/gtk-changes-2-0.html I synced with the latest 1.1 branch finding fluid in excelent shape (Matt, others, thumbs up!!) with tons of usefull things; and it would be nice to see _that_ fluid in 2.0; with current state, porting will require imho week/two; addressing above issues will require day or two. One of the solutions would be to use 1.1 draw/layout scheme in 2.0; this will break code for some time, but it will be a good base with bright future. Here is one catch: it will break everything in Nuke, forcing Bill to make his own branch leaving current 2.0 developers between syncing with Bill and 1.2 code; no to good either. Alternatives, ideas ? > The long term goal of unifying the 1.1 and 2.0 developments, or at > least harmonising them, still needs to be addressed[*] This is very good point that Duncan observed I am noted above. Also with this I tried to give some thoughts about Millan's post. With some good settlement, those in 1.2 could easily add changes in 2.0 and reverse which will be much productive than everybody duplicating the same code on different ways. -- Sanel _______________________________________________ fltk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.easysw.com/mailman/listinfo/fltk
