Not to name dillo 1.3 & not to drop fltk 2.0 support
While this mail is meant as a follow-up to http://lists.auriga.wearlab.de/pipermail/dillo-dev/2011-January/007943.html, I'd first like to tell you that I'm neither a Dillo nor an FLTK developer, but reading the mails from the archive in this discussion thread got me the impression that Dillo uses FLTK 2.0 internally and that it is intended to switch to 1.3. I wonder if this would actually make sense with respect to an anticipated FLTK 3.0, which, following links from the FLTK project website (http://www.fltk.org/) to the FLTK 3 proposal (http://www.fltk.org/articles.php?L1031) and from there to the more detailed explanations' (http://www.fltk.org/links.php?LC+P402+Q) section 2 (http://www.fltk.org/links.php?V404+Q), is described as build on the FLTK 2 API with FLTK 1.3 interna for stability in the last paragraph of the aforementioned text section. I'd like to restate that I have no idea in which ways Dillo and FLTK are actually connected, but it looks to me like it would be a good idea for Dillo developers to check what's planned with FLTK 3 and perhaps get in contact with FLTK developers on this before switching Dillo code based on FLTK 2 to FLTK 1.3, if the only reason for that is to base Dillo code on an API that will see support in the future. Just my two cents, I hope this mail is appropriately placed here, otherwise apologies, for this is my first mail to any mailing list ever and I'm still quite uncertain about how referring to messages in the archived thread actually works. P.S.: The preceding sentence is not entirely true, as I have already tried yesterday to send the above text to the mailing list. As it didn't appear in the archive until now, I've subscribed to the list as a debugging measure and try it again, in case prior subscription to the list is required to send messages to it. In that case, I'd also like to suggest that such a requirement be communicated at the information page (http://www.dillo.org/MListinfo.html).
On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 10:25:07PM +0000, Karsten Witzman wrote:
While this mail is meant as a follow-up to http://lists.auriga.wearlab.de/pipermail/dillo-dev/2011-January/007943.html, I'd first like to tell you that I'm neither a Dillo nor an FLTK developer, but reading the mails from the archive in this discussion thread got me the impression that Dillo uses FLTK 2.0 internally and that it is intended to switch to 1.3.
I wonder if this would actually make sense with respect to an anticipated FLTK 3.0, which, following links from the FLTK project website (http://www.fltk.org/) to the FLTK 3 proposal (http://www.fltk.org/articles.php?L1031) and from there to the more detailed explanations' (http://www.fltk.org/links.php?LC+P402+Q) section 2 (http://www.fltk.org/links.php?V404+Q), is described as build on the FLTK 2 API with FLTK 1.3 interna for stability in the last paragraph of the aforementioned text section.
I'd like to restate that I have no idea in which ways Dillo and FLTK are actually connected, but it looks to me like it would be a good idea for Dillo developers to check what's planned with FLTK 3 and perhaps get in contact with FLTK developers on this before switching Dillo code based on FLTK 2 to FLTK 1.3, if the only reason for that is to base Dillo code on an API that will see support in the future.
Point taken. I'll get in contact with them. The background is: they've changed plans several times. We got in very close contact before going with F2, and they said it was to be released real soon (as now with F1.3 and F3). Five years later F2 is dead and we're out of distros. At some point they reached consensus and decided to push F1.3 forward, and it's being moving at good pace. Hopefully with a release in this quarter. I agree that having F3 with F2's API would be the best. The doubt is when will this happen if ever. -- Cheers Jorge.-
On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 09:32:09 -0500, Jorge Arellano Cid <jcid@dillo.org> wrote:
Point taken.
I'll get in contact with them.
The background is: they've changed plans several times. We got in very close contact before going with F2, and they said it was to be released real soon (as now with F1.3 and F3). Five years later F2 is dead and we're out of distros.
At some point they reached consensus and decided to push F1.3 forward, and it's being moving at good pace. Hopefully with a release in this quarter.
I agree that having F3 with F2's API would be the best. The doubt is when will this happen if ever.
At this point I'm half-tempted to throw together an API wrapper myself, just so we can have something and save ourselves the trouble of rewriting Dillo (again). As an aside, I wish just one of the major toolkits would get its act together; we all know about GTK+, and I'm still using Qt 3 because 4.x is such a mess. It's sad when coding directly against native APIs -- Win32, Cocoa, pure Xlib -- is almost the more attractive option. ~Benjamin
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 10:21:18AM -0500, Benjamin Johnson wrote: On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 09:32:09 -0500, Jorge Arellano Cid <jcid@dillo.org> wrote:
Point taken.
I'll get in contact with them.
The background is: they've changed plans several times. We got in very close contact before going with F2, and they said it was to be released real soon (as now with F1.3 and F3). Five years later F2 is dead and we're out of distros.
At some point they reached consensus and decided to push F1.3 forward, and it's being moving at good pace. Hopefully with a release in this quarter.
I agree that having F3 with F2's API would be the best. The doubt is when will this happen if ever.
Although I'm just a bystander concerning Dillo (my favorite all time browser), I agree. The way they're wording is published on the FLTK website concerning F3, it won't ever likely happen (unless things really take off with F1.3.)
At this point I'm half-tempted to throw together an API wrapper myself, just so we can have something and save ourselves the trouble of rewriting Dillo (again).
Ditto. I've tinkering around just trying to compile Dillo against fltk-1.3 here on Gentoo for kicks. Got a running bug here with not being able to enter keyboard text within fields after switching virtual desktop in DWM (aka tags).
As an aside, I wish just one of the major toolkits would get its act together; we all know about GTK+, and I'm still using Qt 3 because 4.x is such a mess. It's sad when coding directly against native APIs -- Win32, Cocoa, pure Xlib -- is almost the more attractive option.
Ditto. FLTK has a great idea, but seems to be low on man power. Qt just makes me ill to be stomach -- to Qt for me. Don't care about flowers, just gimme something to clickity-click on! -- Roger http://rogerx.freeshell.org/
At this point I'm half-tempted to throw together an API wrapper myself, just so we can have something and save ourselves the trouble of rewriting Dillo (again).
Ditto. I've tinkering around just trying to compile Dillo against fltk-1.3 here on Gentoo for kicks. Got a running bug here with not being able to enter keyboard text within fields after switching virtual desktop in DWM (aka tags).
Changed the following to use fltk(1-3) libs instead of fltk-2. File: configure.in dnl ---------------------- dnl Test for FLTK library dnl ---------------------- dnl dnl For debugging and to be user friendly AC_MSG_CHECKING([FLTK2]) if sh -c "fltk-config --version" >/dev/null 2>&1 then AC_MSG_RESULT(yes) LIBFLTK_CXXFLAGS=`fltk-config --cxxflags` LIBFLTK_CFLAGS=`fltk-config --cflags` LIBFLTK_LIBS=`fltk-config --ldflags` else AC_MSG_RESULT(no) AC_MSG_ERROR(FLTK2 must be installed!) fi ./autogen && ./configure && make Resulted in a large number of function changes. (aka underfined reference errors) Now I can see why you're dragging your feet on just creating a CVS/SVN repository for fltk-1.3! -- Roger http://rogerx.freeshell.org/
participants (4)
-
hulladiho＠googlemail.com -
jcid＠dillo.org -
obeythepenguin＠gmail.com -
rogerx.oss＠gmail.com