Am Donnerstag, 24. Oktober 2002 17:36 schrieben Sie: > On Thursday 24 October 2002 03:23 pm, Jason Wood wrote: > > Yes you could and should extend at least my GUI, but what I mean is > > that it is not going to make the computer crash'n'burn if the GUI > > doesn't know about some advanced feature in the engine. > > ;-) > > > > Easy. But my engine can do _much_ more already. And of course I > > > don't want to get the features burried because the XML can't handle > > > them ;-) > > > > What kind of things are you talking about here? Is it a case of > > transitions, effects, etc? > > Yes. My goal is neither an engine nor a GUI, I want a video solution. I > will not work on effects for an engine I cannot use in the GUI. If > somebody else wants a gui that ignores half of the features, ok, I would > say that both needs to go hand in hand.
Well the GUI can do all effects by definition. An effect is just like a function in a compiler. You have inputs and parameters and a name. Maybe later even something which specifies how the effects should be previewed in the engine. > > I agree, but don't feel that you have to change to QT just to match > > the GUI - if a Gnome GUI comes along and used your engine, they will > > still have dependencies on both toolkits. > > Well, I am not as optimistic with this multi GUI multi engine solution > as you are, but anyway for me there are also other reasons to switch to > QT. Mainly Font handling and rendering and QDom. RIght now I use > libxml++ to persist the renmder tree, but this is suboptimal. Well font rendering might be a little problem, but maybe we can call external programms for that. For example Gimp. Servus Casandro -- Warning! (this is no commercial ad) This e-mail probably will be read by secret services. Therefore please get pgp or gnupg and send me your public key so we e-mail encryptedly. http://www.gnupg.org/
