[GUI] Opinion summary.
Sun, 16 Feb 2003 18:12:01 +0000
On Sun, Feb 16, 2003 at 06:37:10PM +0100, Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote:
> Hello again,
> some mails ago I already talked about the two interpretions of "level":
> (a) functional (high) vs. imperative (low)
> (b) high level GUI concepts (e.g., common dialogs) vs. low level GUI
> concepts (e.g., single widgets or even drawing primitives)
> Opinion 4c currently says that the common API shall be at a higher level than
> the (L) interface. A problem is that it is not clear to which meaning of
> "level" this refers. I definitely meant that the common API shall be
> high-level with respect to (b). Another point is that I didn't want to talk
> about differences between the "common API" and the (L) interface. In fact, I
> wanted to say that already the (L) interface should be high-level in the (b)
> meaning. Otherwise it would be hard or impossible to implement a
> native-look-and-feel (A) interface on top of it. If, for example, (L) didn't
> support file open dialogs directly, (A) would have to build them itself which
> would probably lead to dialogs which are different from the platform specific
Yes, I think the term level on the Haskell web-site refers to (a). To me
it is not clear that we have to restrict ourselves in term of (b): Of
course, we need to support the native Open File dialogs instead of
building our own, but even elementary thing like drawing onto a canvas
could be made common to all platforms since they all use an
"redraw-this-part" event-driven scheme AFAIK. Perhaps I can add a list of
topics we can potentially cover and then see if it is achievable.
> So I would rephrase 4c as follows:
> to achieve native look-and-feel on each platform, the common API shall
> provide support for high-level GUI concepts like common dialogs or
> applications, not only for widget structures
Ok, I added a comment to the footnote in the Abstraction Level paragraph.
Since this is supposed to be only a summary of opinions, I put your
paragraph into the preliminary "Mission Statement" section.
> Furthermore, in section 2 (objectives) you talk about the platforms "the
> community is interested in". Does this mean that this covers all platforms
> someone from the community is interested in or that it covers only those
> platforms most people of the community are interested in. If the former is
> the case, I would like to see KDE added.
But I thought Qt represents KDE in terms of the user interface?! Or is
this relation like Gtk-GNOME where GNOME provides more advanced widgets?
I'll change Gtk to Gtk(GNOME) and Qt to Qt (KDE) then.
Thanks for the comments,