Boost logo

Boost :

From: Reece Dunn (msclrhd_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-12-24 06:04:31

Alan Gutierrez wrote:
> * I don't think it matters much, to the user, if the button they
> click is a Motif button or an Aqua button, so long as their form
> is processed. Go to Amazon. All the buttons there are images.

True, but you still need native as an option. Windows allows buttons to
be either text, image or text+image. I don't yet support images because
I do not have a graphics class to represent images yet. When I do, I
will allow images in buttons.

You must also consider how native controls interact with the OS. For
example, how are key presses handled? Accessability support? Having a
button as a native object allows it to interact with things like screen
readers and people who use the keyboard as their main input device (I
use a lot of the keyboard shortcuts in Windows for speed).

Native interoperability also means things like having the correct menu
nomenclature for the specific OS, responding to CTRL-P in Windows for
printing. It also means using WinXP L&F when this is applicable.

Having said that, this should be the default behaviour of an
application. This allows you to create a UI based on the components and
not having to worry about supporting Windows XP-specific logic to handle
themes properly. It should just work :).

The library should allow for you to provide owner/custom draw
functionality to provide a custom L&F. For example, allow your
application to be skinned like Mozilla Firefox/Thunderbird, WinAMP,
Windows Media Player, etc.

I need to work out how to support lightweight components that do not
consume OS resources for GUI components. Examples of this are the layout
managers that act like components, i.e. they need to consume events, but
do not take up resources on the OS.

> * Dealing with Win32 GDI controls is pain. Because they consume a
> Win32 window they are not going to place nice a more complex
> layout like a grid or a document. They are so few an simple, it
> is trivial to replicate them.
> The Win32 GDI is going to be a real problem, and it will put
> unnecessary design constraints on the GUI library if its poor
> behavior is enabled.

I think we need to do a comparison of how graphics is handled between
different systems: Win32/GDI, Win32/GDI+, Win32/DirectX, OpenGL, X11, etc.

I am going to look into this at some point, but other peoples feedback
is most welcome. I know Andy Little has experience in this area.


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at