Re: Re[4]: Porting MrProject to wxWindows

fre 2003-10-24 klockan 12.47 skrev Antti Merenluoto:
> On 24 Oct 2003 11:21:00 +0300 Richard Hult <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 
> > I'd rather see an effort to make MrProject run under Windows without
> > porting it to another toolkit. We don't use a lot of GNOME-specific
> > code, and with GTK+ 2.4 coming up with it's new nice menu system we
> > could get rid of the bulk of it. I've already tried using eggmenu (the
> > prototype for the new GTK menu system) and that worked fine. Also we
> > should really switch to foocanvas instead of gnomecanvas, it shouldn't
> > be too hard to make that work under Windows (maybe someone already
> > did?).
> > 
> > If it's done that way, we don't get duplication of effort and any
> > improvements to either version is directly beneficial for the other.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Richard
> > 
> 
> In other words, you mean using the GTK+ for Win32 in Windows and then
> porting the foocanvas to Windows (I did not find any references from the
> internet about existing ports)? My impression was that the GTK+ Win32 lags
> a bit behind the actual GTK+ Linux version. That presents a little problem.
> Foocanvas port takes also some time. My initial thought was that the port
> to wxWindows would be less painful than foocanvas to Windows and we would
> not have to worry about the GTK+ versions. wxWindows is more C++ wrapper
> that a toolkit. In Linux wxWindows equals GTK+. I think multiplatform
> development is easiest with wxWindows. 

Foocanvas should be easy, it's basically a gdk canvas, so it should in
theory already work, I guess.

A port must be a lot more work, since it would bascially mean a rewrite
of all the code, right? And after that, there are two branches that are
separated, and all work that goes into one of them is lost on the other
one. If we can get a GTK+ only version working, that would save a lot of
duplication.

I'm not sure how far behind GTK+ 2.3 is on Windows, if it is behind at
all. It's definitely a good idea to check it out though since it's a
much better option than a regular rewrite, at least in my opinion.

Regards,
Richard

-- 
Richard Hult                    [email protected]
Imendio                         http://www.imendio.com