On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 20:30:17 +0200
"Graeme Geldenhuys" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 14/10/06, Marc Weustink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Personally I would go for a handle per widget (but I like native
> > controls).
>
> Uh?
>
> > painting is clipped for childs..
> > messages are passed the handle..
> > enable/disable are handled (disabled wil receive no messages)
>
> Yeah, the LPTK author mentioned these as benefits as well.
>
> > But one handle for all is imo also an option if you want to paint
> > and do everything yourself (no native controls)
>
> I don't understand what you mean with native / no native controls?
> Both widget sets fpGUI and LPTK do all widget painting themselves. We
> do not use native controls at all. The difference between the two is
> that LPTK allocates handles per widget, and fpGUI per form (window).
>
> The LPTK author and I are discussing the posibility of merging our
> efforts and work together on one ultimate widget set. No point in
> having two projects, striving for the same thing. We are trying to
> work through our differences and see what is the better option between
> the two.
>
>
> > NT-based windows have the same pools, but then for each process.
> > The max number of handles on NT (ran into it on XP) for graphics,
> > windows, etc is about 16k in total, with a limit of 10k for a
> > process.
>
> So based on those numbers it is pretty safe to allocate handles per
> widget in a Windows platform. I can think you would reach that limit
> easily. So how does X11 compare?
AFAIK gtk2 uses more X11 handles than gtk1, because it has no impact
on speed and made the internals more consistent.
But it increases the network load. But I don't know how much.
Mattias
_________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe" as the Subject
archives at http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailarchives
