Re: Opinion summary.

On Sun, Feb 16, 2003 at 06:41:55PM +0100, Nick Name wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 17:12:54 +0000
> Axel Simon <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> > 
> >   Oh no, the point should be: If you use the Common API you will 
> >  (automatically) get applications which have a native look-and-feel.
> 
> I think there is a more tecnical aspect to discuss and that perhaps
> could be added to the summary if people agree.
Yes, indeed. I am indeed lagging with my document since this technical 
discussion has already started. But before we define the details, we 
should probably define the core of the library (Yahu / Object I/O 
approaches) and then discuss:

> Macos X has a notion of "application" and one of "document", and when
> one closes the last window of an application, the application is still
> running. On windows, OTOH, it's (at least it was) common pratice not to
> open a second instance of an application, but a new document instead,
> for every run of the program. On linux, there is the well known
> behaviour of creating a new unix process, and a new instance of the
> application, for every execution of the program.
a) the SDI/MDI/NDI problem which Krasimir has raised on Jan 28

[..]
> To get back on what I was talking about, if we want the common API to
> achieve real look and feel, we ought to have an "application"
> abstraction, wich is different from the "window" one. So an application
> could behave really different in any OS. On OSX, the menus of the
> documents of the same application will have to be in a submenu of the
> main menu for the application, and items like "exit" wich are not in the
> file menu (at least, I think I have heard so :)) need to be part of the
> "application" abstraction, as do the common items wich are found in the
> "help" menu.
b) the application startup that enforces one menu bar and
c) default menu entries (Exit on Windows, Quit on Mac - but the same thing 
in the Common GUI API)

I will try to keep up with the discussion!

Axel.