> with swt i've tried to define how one would interact with it to create the > UI, it could be driven by any language able to read and write to files. > its interesting that surf and dwm just got fifo in them...perhaps tabbed > should too. perhaps really we should have separate embedable > applications with fifos. one for listboxes, one for tree views, an embedable > lil'd (son of dwm) for layouts within an app, a keyboard listener for focus > switching?
So, why not use surf as the abstract layer I was thinking before (Roberto's idea) Roberto: > You should avoid words as 'stupid', if you don't want to convert > this in something personal. If you don't agree with an idea, > please indicate the technical reasons, or in other case shut up. I didn't mean to offend you. If I did so, you have my apologies. I liked your idea very much. I meant "overkill". 2 processes for 1 text editor is overkill. If you have 2 processes for each editor instance I think that it is an overkill, but if you have 1 process for each editor + 1 "central" graphic renderer, it's ok. Can't we use surf as the graphical renderer? My concern is that if I do what I'm thinking, I'll end up writing a fifo interface of ncurses and GTK, which is not the point, as I could just use the lib directly. In particular, you suggest a fifo editor. Am I right?
