Kent Sandvik schrieb: > On 1/2/06, Mike Emmel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>Saving 2-3 megs is good but with a default 56 meg footprint >>it's like a few percent of the total. And as I said before I can't see >>LiTe not growing to close to a 1 meg if it fully supports mozilla this >>may be in mozilla specific widgets but still the total widget support >>will probably approach 1 meg. So your really looking at a 1-2 meg >>footprint difference between what I call compelete LiTE and a stripped >>GTK. The cause of this is is really just the unremoved bloat plus all >>the gobject cruft. > > > LiTE will never become 1-2 Mb as long as I live :-). Anyway, any > additional widgets and support will be placed outside LiTE itself. > LiTE is just a toolkit enabler, any specific code needed for ports > should be moved to the abstraction level on top of LiTE and below the > target to be ported.
Another issue with using GTK/GDK is not the binary size, but the extra run time overhead for adapting this layer between Mozilla and DirectFB. GDK has some different semantics that forbid optimizations or cause a 'more-than-some-call-translations' overhead to emulate them, while LiTE can really benefit from the differences in DirectFB. -- Best regards, Denis Oliver Kropp .------------------------------------------. | DirectFB - Hardware accelerated graphics | | http://www.directfb.org/ | "------------------------------------------" _______________________________________________ directfb-dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.directfb.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/directfb-dev
