Hi, On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 12:43:49PM -0300, Jorge Arellano Cid wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 08:48:05AM +0100, Diego . wrote:
[...] Second. I want to suggest to not to remove the fltk 2.0 support code from dillo.
DilloWidget support more than one "backend" so fltk 1.3 can be added whitout remove fltk 2.0 and selected at compile time or even runtime. Using 1.3 and compile time as sane defaults, of course.
Unfortunately this is not true. Dw has an abstraction layer, but all the user interface is native.
I think it wouldn't even make sense to have an abstraction layer for the GUI. The GUI is concentrated in a small number of files in src/* and those files have to be ported. An abstraction layer here would complicate things more than it would help.
A test version that draw 2 windows aech one with a "backend" can ve used to compare visual results during the port to 1.3.
To support 2 "backend" now can heltp to support others in the future. ?what about a directfb one? Debian instaler will thanks it even i them use X now.
Given the manpower, this *may* be possible. Although I don't see much worth in supporting a dead library, given the new one is less buggy and more capable.
I would fully move over to fltk-1.3. We still keep the fltk2 code in the history. Of course if someone wants to maintain a fltk2 branch, that would be nice. Cheers, Johannes