sam at campbellsci.co.uk
Thu Sep 2 10:41:42 EDT 1999
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael A. Hess [mailto:mhess at miraclec.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 1999 09:24 PM
> To: lazarus at miraclec.com
> Subject: Re: [lazarus] Progress
> How will this be able to support themes?
> How will this be able to support DnD?
> How will this be able to support Corba?
It jolly well won't unless the developer adds that.
> If you think that you can make it do all of this well then great. We had
> this dicussion back in the beginning of the summer where we mulled over
> the possibility of writing directly to the XLIB or GDK. We all decided
> that it wasn't the way to go. Now all of a sudden everyone is talking
> about doing that again.
No. we are staying stick with GDK, but lets not require C++ in order to
write new components.
> If you go that way I feel that it will be
> extremely difficult to keep the indendence we have started with the
> InterfaceObject stuff.
No, I can manage this.
> The only way to do it will most likely be to tie
> GTK or whatever API directly to the LCL.
Nope, we can abstract it, I have it worked out.
> A large part of the recent
> discussion was based on using EXISTING Delphi code. This existing code
> is based on the premise that you can override things like the paint and
> draw for the parent component and draw it how you want. But API's like
> GTK don't work that way and that is what I am trying to point out.
If its a Delphi clone then this needs to be worked out the YES way, not the
> Code written brand new using Lazarus and the LCL can extend the base LCL
> features by linking directly to the GTK and GDK themselves if they so
> desire. But there will be alot of existing that Delphi code that will
> only be usuable AFTER it has been modified to meet the feature set of
> the LCL.
I really don't like this at all.
The differences can be encapsulated in the GTK interface, with possibly a
few additions to GTK itself.
More information about the Lazarus