RE: Re: Re: [boost] GUI/GDI template library

From: Brock Peabody (brock.peabody_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-08-04 14:32:57

> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
[mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]]
> On Behalf Of E. Gladyshev
> Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 1:03 PM
> To: Boost mailing list
> Subject: RE: Re: Re: [boost] GUI/GDI template library
> 
> 
> --- Brock Peabody <brock.peabody_at_[hidden]>
> wrote:
> 
> > If we can keep our interface simple
> > it might be easiest
> > to just make the library an interface specification
> > which is implemented
> > totally independently for each target platform. Does
> > that seem
> > reasonable?
> 
> I agree.
> I think we can have 2 layers. One layer is a low-level
> single interface specification that will be
> implemented independently for each target platform.
> This low-level interface can be designed in terms of
> pImpl or ImplTraits idioms (the design would have to
> be different depending on the idiom we choose). I
> favor the ImplTraits idiom.
> The higher layer it the actual gui::boost library that
> would be implement as a modern C++ library and reside
> in .h files completely.  The boost::gui would always
> call the specified low-level interface to do the
> low-level stuff (like create_window, draw_text, etc.).
>  Is it what you mean?

I think :)

What I am trying to say is that the library would be completely
reimplemented for each platform, except for those parts of the library
which are implemented entirely in terms of the library's public
interface.

This saves us from having to find a representational scheme that will
fit on top of an unknown number of platforms which might not have
anything in common.  

Is that what you thought I meant?

Brock