[lsb-discuss] Request for additional interfaces

Wichmann, Mats D mats.d.wichmann at intel.com
Thu Jun 15 05:35:49 PDT 2006


>Xft sounds reasonable, we could easily deal with that.
>
>The problem with Gtk+ or Qt is that we would be forced into these
>toolkits which means an application re-write (very unlikely). I don't
>know anything about Cairo.

yeah, I figured bringing in Qt or Gtk would be a little heavy
weight for an app that isn't already using them.

>It is great that the LSB includes the toolkits. Another great 
>feature of
>the LSB is that it allows properly abstracted toolkits to be used and
>shipped with an application. For example we use FOX for platform
>independence (Gtk+ and Qt have caught up here but too late). FOX is a
>toolkit abstracted at the X11 and win32 level. Thus, as long as we ship
>FOX with the application we can still have an LSB compliant application
>without being forced into Gtk+ or Qt. This means someth library on the
>X11 level needs to deal with multi byte characters. Whether 
>this is Xlib or Xft doesn't matter from an application point of view,
>changing the link command takes all but 2 seconds.

Thanks for the feedback - good info.




More information about the lsb-discuss mailing list