On Fri, 3 Oct 2003, David Martin wrote:
> Jorge,
>
> I would like to quickly comment on the todo list.
>
> [Snip]
>
> *Future Goals* (these may change in the future)
> Port dillo to GTK+2.0
>
> [/Snip]
>
> IMHO considering Dillo's concentration on speed and stability, it seems
> like it would be more appropriate to port the future Dillo to fltk not
> fat bloated GTK2.0.
>
> I would expect that a staticly compiled Dillo-fltk binary would be
> considerably smaller then a dynamically compiled Dillo-GTK2 binary.
>
>
> Food For Thought.
The FLTK idea is certainly an insteresting issue to analize.
The porting task would be far from simple (if possible at all).
Dillo does not only uses GTK+ for the user interface but for HTML
rendering.
Dillo has its own widget system (Dw), that's embedded inside
GTK+ widgets, and that at its turn can also embedd GTK+ widgets
again. This is the core of the porting problem.
The main reason for porting dillo to GTK+2 (instead of sticking
to 1.2.10) is Unicode support (explained in the [Project Notes]
link).
And yes, I've been somewhat scared by the size of GTK+2. For
instance in Slackware it jumps from 4Mb to 17Mb!
Now, considering that FLTK has Unicode support, gathering more
information becomes an interesting thing to do.
I don't know FLTK :(, but here is a list with some preliminary
concerns (AFAIK):
* Does it provide C bindings, or is for C++ only?
* Does it have a table widget or similar to GTK+'s layout?
* Can it be extended with Dw in the way stated above?
* Unicode and antialiasing support status?
Please don't get me wrong. This email is just a RFC to make a
more informed decision on the issue. The current plan is to go
with GTK+2, but if this path shows better, things can change.
This is also an RFC for information on GTK+2 (speed, size,
linkings etc).
Please back your opinions with links, docs, facts or with
whatever helps better to understand the point. Maybe a single
email can show there's no way to do it, or maybe not!
Cheers
Jorge.-