On 6/24/05, Chris Warren-Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >On 6/23/05, Jose Manrique Lopez de la Fuente <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> 2005/6/23, Kalle Vahlman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> > I wonder why one would want to bolt a toolkit on top of another one? > >> > Does FLTK have some overly fantastic widgets that Gtk is missing? > >> > >> I think that main advantage of FLTK is the 'L? in its name: Light. > > > >Yes, and as I pointed out, if it's ported to use gtk it won't be just > that. > >> Do we really need another GUI environment in such device? That's the > >> question. > >Well, you'd have to rewrite the whole UI if you want to take advantage > >of FLTK, since the UI is all gtk. > >So to use FLTK, install the rootstrap, remove any gtk-related packages > >and start porting/coding :) > > FLTK has its own UI and the demo fltk apps that I tried looked pretty > nice in the scatchbox environment. At a minimun it would really just need > a way to integrate the application icon to be usable.
Yeah, but if you have a not-so-light gtk running already, why on earth would you want to run FLTK with it? Unless FLTK has some killer-app of course. > Calling gtk routines from a fltk app would only increase the exe size if > they were statically linked. Exe size has nothing to do with it. If you have gtk already loaded, the "light" part of FTLK becomes insignificant. But, to make any app integrate with the environment, the places to look at are libosso and task navigator (AFAIK). -- Kalle Vahlman, [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
