Michael Schnell wrote:
On 06/02/2010 06:24 PM, Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho wrote:
This idea was proven wrong in the history of LCL-Gtk2.
I can't imagine how deliberately maintaining duplicated code sequencers
would reduce the overall maintenance effort rather than increasing it.
This contradicts any software design rules "!out of the book". But
happily it's not me do decide ;).
It isn't really proven either. It's more comparing apples and oranges.
The problem is that the gtk interface was the first one implemented and
got partly rewritten once. With the experience we got there, the Carbon
and QT interface have a much cleaner internal design. Something the gtk
interface should heve too. Were that the case, then having the same code
base would be less of a problem. But.... that isn't the case.
So for the given fact of the internal state of the gtk1/gtk2 interface,
it is better to split them and improve gtk2 internally.
Marc
--
_______________________________________________
Lazarus mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
