On 29.05.2008, at 21:41, Cameron King wrote: > I liked the 1.1.x series. > > Why after 1.1.7 is there 1.1.8 and 1.1.9. What's the difference > between them?
1.1.8 is a pretty great enhancement of 1.1.7. A few new features and a ton of bug fixes. <http://fltk.org/articles.php?L801+I20+T+M10+P1+Q> Unfortunatly, even after thorough bug fixing, two unfriendly bugs slipped through my fingers, so there is 1.1.9: <http://fltk.org/articles.php?L820+I0+T+M10+P1+Q> > Why is 1.3.x now being developed in the SVN instead of effort > primarily into the 2.x.x series? Honestly, I don't like it. But I guess it is part due to my selfishness. Maybe you remember - before you went on that diving cruise - that 1.1.7 kept getting fixed, but new bugs popped up. It took me almost two years to get 1.1.8 out (plus 400EUR/600$ in cash). FLTK2 has rarely seen any bug fixing during that time, and although the API is greatly improved, the bug list is long. Very long. For me, switching to 2.x would not only mean that I have to recode large parts of my existing code, but would also require a huge bug fixing session for FLTK2, just to get to where I am now with FLTK1. FLTK1 is ultra-stable and has most of the features I need. 1.3.0 will be 1.1.9 with those missing features, namely UTF-8/Unicode, tables, and tress. > Is this legacy-gone-mad, or experimental branches? Sigh. > Finally, was it decided to base future FLTK on OpenGL or Cairo? I don't know for 2.x, but for 1.3, I feel that the interface between native code and the library should be better defined, cleaned, and made pluggable. That way, a user could mix OprnGL rendering of widgets with Cairo or Framebuffers or whatever else is out there. > I couldn't find an FAQ on this. It was discaussed in some length when 1.1.8 came out. It is not a good situation, but the alternatives seemed worse. Matthias ---- http://robowerk.com/ _______________________________________________ fltk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.easysw.com/mailman/listinfo/fltk
