Hello
Viktor Szakáts wrote: > > The question is which way to choose to rewrite it _once_. > Options: GUI and WUI (web UI). For me a GUI is only an > option if it's at least portable, and it's a plus if it's relatively > easy to migrate CUI source, possibly with gradual rewrite. > This is EXACTLY the theme of GTWVG. Reusability of Clipper source. Just add few lines and have a nice look and feel. > GTWVG is IMO a bit too much things stuck together. My > opinion is that it would be much better to somehow logically > separate its components (to layers, modules, libs), because > currently it's too big and you either use the whole thing, or > you don't use it at all. For me its unclear how the Xbase++ > classes can live by themselves (or not), and its also unclear > how the different namespaces / internal components are > connected to each other. > Yes, off course, too many things. But all are detachable, all can be used separately as well as cummulatively. Namespaces are strikingly distinguished. None interfare with others. And it is relatively easy to separate if there is a need for so. > It's also a question whether Xbase++ classes are the ultimate > answer for a portable GUI class. I cannot answer that. Anyhow > if we have proper layers, these components can be swapped > one by one, at least ideally. > This is a question of debate. I choose Xbase++ modal on the strength of its sheer uniformity in calling conventions and parameter passing PLUS a decent documentation you need not to rewrite PLUS a large user base. Enough reasons to base. > I don't know, but since QT is probably the best product on the > scene with such goal, I believe it is. Portability goes a long way > however, and each components (like Harbour wrapper, class > implementation) has to be equally developed with portability in > mind. A lot depends on the accessibility to Harbour programs, too. > Xbase++ compatible framework is purely on PRG level. To make it multi-platform you need to call the OS API. So it it is just a matter of time when someone copy its class structure and implement the next platform. > All this is just (repeated) speculation unfortunately. We don't > really seem to move anywhere. > Sadly. And hence GTWVG + Xbase++ implementation is a single handed effort in that direction. Regards Pritpal Bedi -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Question-to-xBase%2B%2B-users-tp22537039p22550722.html Sent from the Harbour - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ Harbour mailing list [email protected] http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
