michael at tfdec1.fys.kuleuven.ac.be michael at tfdec1.fys.kuleuven.ac.be
Sun Jun 27 13:52:11 EDT 1999

On Sun, 27 Jun 1999, Michael A. Hess wrote:

> Baeseman, Cliff wrote:
> > 
> > I have not looked to closely at it but should we be implementing at
> > the glib level? Maybe totaly define our component structures based
> > from glib vs the already defined widgets.
> > 
> > What does everyone think? Suggestions Welcome.
> I have thought about this in the past. If we were intending on making
> Lazarus (aka the FCL) GUI API dependent then coding directly to glib
> would be the best idea. Then all compenents would be designed within the
> FCL and would make inheritence of components and the ability to redesign
> components based on a parent much easier.

I think that you should code as API independent as possible. Experience
with the compiler shows that people like two things:
1) Borland compatibility. Be it TP or Delphi.
2) Cross-platform indenpendence.
Bearing this in mind, I propose to make API independent structures,
(After all, you are writing an API of your own) possibly with GLIb (or
whatever) descendents.

> However, that would tie us more closely to GTK. It might make using
> other APIs such as QT for KDE much more difficult. By not going stright
> to glib we will be able to make interfaces directly to the GNOME widget
> set which gives our FPC code immediate D&D, Corba, etc. etc. without our
> having to add any of that into the FCL. So it is a trade off. I think
> setting up interfaces to the various GUI APIs is the best way to go. It
> removes that headache from our shoulders.

The people writing KCL have made it ready to be ported to native win32 and
Qt. I think Lazarus should not do less. 


More information about the Lazarus mailing list