On Sat, 01 Jan 2000 00:30:50 PST, the world broke into rejoicing as
Rob Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> >>>>> On Sat, 01 Jan 2000 01:12:16 -0600, Christopher Browne
> >>>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> what are the IDEs which kick out both gtk and qt code? maybe I should
> take a stab at each of them.
There *aren't any.*
The main tool that can be used to produce GTK code is Glade.
The main Qt equivalent that I'm aware of is "QtEz." They don't
interoperate.
> >> Write the UI with an UI editor, with an UI editor which could kick
> >> out both QT and gnome, and then we could have it run on both
> >> windows and linux, in either qt or gnome versions.
>
> Christopher> Supposing such a tool existed, this might be an
> Christopher> interesting idea.
>
> one of my favorite fantasies includes having a windows user run our
> app, and upon startup, they are asked whether or not they want it to
> look and act like quicken or mym or gnucash.
>
> Then, that same user gets a better app from the opensource community
> for when we need to play catch up with the legacy proprietary UI
> creators, as well as faster bug fixes and a more stable, robust app.
>
> Christopher> There *do* exist independent tools for "kicking out" Qt
> Christopher> and GTK UI's; they don't interoperate, and since the
> Christopher> models are fairly different, it seems not too likely that
> Christopher> this will be created.
>
> rats.
I don't think this is a big deal at all. There is no forcible need
to use GTK and Qt; they can both coexist quite nicely atop X, which
means there's no problem with a KDE partisan running a few GTK-based
applications, or a GNOME partisan running a few Qt-based applications.
I think this begs the question:
Why *precisely* do you think it is vastly important to simultaneously
use multiple GUI toolkits?
I don't see there being any technical merit to the idea; having to
conform to two GUIs at the same time means having to conform to a
lowest common denominator, thus meaning you've got an application that
is neither a "good GTK app" nor a "good Qt app."
> Christopher> Of course, most of the GnuCash UI effort, of late, has
> Christopher> gone into GTK, which is not a terrible thing in light of
> Christopher> the fact that GLADE exists, and seems to work fairly
> Christopher> well.
>
> I was wondering if I should start clicking with glade and trying to
> duplicate what we already have in our gnucash-gtk UI. Would that be a
> waste of time? The part that scares me is the register widget, as I
> don't see one of those in glade. :-)
I suspect that's the *true* crux of the matter.
> >> And then.... during the first invocation of gnucash (or with
> >> command line switches), it would have an opening dialog box with
> >> options of "our way", "quicken way", "mym way" or whatever "way"
> >> people wanted to code up.
>
> Christopher> This approach would be fairly compatible with the notion
> Christopher> of writing up GUIs using Glade, and implementing using
> Christopher> libGlade. libGlade reads in the GTK GUI representation
> Christopher> in XML form, which means that if you wanted to have
> Christopher> several visibly different GUIs, you might create:
>
> will libglade apps run under windows?
Dunno.
> Christopher> a) GnuCash-gui.xml
> Christopher> b) Quicken-gui.xml
> Christopher> c) MyM-gui.xml
> Christopher> and load the desired variation in at run time.
>
> Christopher> That does, of course, assume that the GUI was
> Christopher> sufficiently separated from the register code that *all*
> Christopher> the GUI definition could reside in the XML file, and
> Christopher> *all* the register code would reside in GnuCash, The
> Christopher> Program.
>
> is it this way now?
I don't think there's many applications doing this sort of thing
yet; libglade is only a few months old, which means that there has
not yet been time for people to do massively ambitious things
with it.
> Christopher> Dave and/or Rob Browning might be able to provide more
> Christopher> guidance as to how realistic *that* sounds.
>
> ahh, I see. I hope that they do, too.
>
> The only reasons I was talking about using qt was because I thought
> that QT was the only toolkit which ran under windows and because I was
> hoping to stave _that_ whole argument off before it happened, and to
> keep the two GUIs in sync with each other in regards to their
> capabilities and bugs and whatnot.
There is a GTK port to Win32; I don't know its quality.
> (is there a quickfill data type in gtk?)
There's some "stemming" functions in glib, relating to the
_GCompletion structure. See /usr/include/glib.h
> rob
>
> ps. you might need a new .sig now. :-)
There's a new one every minute, and I'll be making fun of Y2K for
years to come...
--
HELP! I'm being attacked by a tenured professor!
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
--
Gnucash Developer's List
To unsubscribe send empty email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
