[GUI] Opinion summary.

Axel Simon A.Simon@ukc.ac.uk
Sun, 16 Feb 2003 17:12:54 +0000

On Sun, Feb 16, 2003 at 04:37:15PM +0100, Nick Name wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 15:13:53 +0000
> Axel Simon <A.Simon@ukc.ac.uk> wrote:
> > I added a summary which I would like you 
> >  to have a look at
> I have read the summary, and there is one point I do not completely
> undestand: the one named "look and feel". Did you mean that we cannot
> achieve native look and feel
> *on all platforms*
>, and so we shall enable the user of the
> library to achieve native look and feel if he wants?

 Oh no, the point should be: If you use the Common API you will 
(automatically) get applications which have a native look-and-feel.

I think I confused you when I wrote:
"We cannot achieve native look-and-feel by using a
  single cross-platform API ..."
I meant back-end instead of API and wxWindows in an example. Thanks for 
pointing this out.

> I think that by
> well-defining the in-famous high-level interface, one could solve the
> problem, but it will come later.
This should be in the Common GUI API.
> As a second point, we have to design the interface so that it's
> implementable for new backends that could come (but I cannot think of a
> way of NOT enabling this).
 I think this is the argument by Peter Aachten ("Object I/O is portable by
design") which is later opposed by Krasimir ("Haskell's Object I/O library
is too Windows specific as it is"). I added this pointer.

I update the document.

Thanks for the early comments,