Re: Babble about Win32Lib
Ralf wrote:
> Actually, there are many issues with 'so-called' portable GUI's.
> Color issues, when the standard colors are changed, the size of
> every line, etc. are all handled by the OS.
Actually, Win32 issues a message to the program that the colors are
changing, and it's up to each program to implement the appropriate actions.
> platform 'adaptence' .. force the precise same look...
> (or somewhere in that direction) .. on both the Mac and Win32 it
> will look 100% the same, for each pixel.
Take a look at Zinc, which does *not* have a 100% pixel for pixel look and
feel, but still works over multiple platforms, including the Mac. As one of
the Zinc papers pointed out, many customers got *very* unhappy when their
application had a Windows look and feel. Even Qt, which only supports two
different platforms, allows the programmer to specify a 'Win32' or 'Motif'
look and feel.
> - precise planning of controls .. if the interface handles
> the exact layout of the window, and is only given an 'estimate'
> of what it should look like, and how it should operate.. it will
> 'adapt'. This has the advantage that it will look correctly
> everywhere..
Many X Windows-based GUIs (such as Tck/Tk and GTK) use geometry managers. As
you pointed out, I had implemented a simple geometry manager in WinMan, but
I have mixed feelings about them. I don't plan on implementing them in the
near future, but there is nothing in the general design of Win32Lib to keep
them from being implemented in the future.
> An example of a different type of layout: Docking Vs Windowed.
MDI is another thing I have mixed feelings about. In general, Microsoft is
moving away from that metaphor, and adopting other approaches (such as
tabs).
Adopting docking for Win32Lib (IMHO) would be too radical - it would clash
with everything else on the desktop, unless you were running an OS or shell
(like AfterStep) that supported docking.
-- David Cuny
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
