From: Alan Gutierrez (alan-boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-12-30 04:10:58
* Andy Little <andy_at_[hidden]> [2004-12-30 03:59]:
> "David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote
> > Reece Dunn wrote:
> >>> With Carbon, I think you just use native controls.
> >>> With Win32 GDI you roll your own controls.
> >> I think that this is not the right approach. You should only roll your
> >> own controls when that control isn't supported by the target OS. The
> >> Win32 GDI and Win32 controls/common controls are different things.
> > Not different enough, IIUC. They're both subject to the same (shared)
> > constraint on maximum number of window handles. To make a windows GUI
> > framework scalable it must provide for that. Not every widget on the
> > screen can afford to be an OS control or window, even when there are
> > appropriate built-ins (consider a grid of spreadsheet cells). One
> > approach might be to make them "ephemeral," i.e. conjure up the actual
> > OS thingy only when you need to draw or process clicks there and then
> > throw it away immediately or soon.
> This implies to me that graphics_element is the common
> abstraction, which might be one base class of a window
What about when you are not using graphic elements? When you are
relying on resource files, you won't need a Boost graphics
absraction at all. I don't think graphic_element is a base
class, I think it is an implementation.
I don't think you can have a grid without one, but you can have
forms with out one.
-- Alan Gutierrez - alan_at_[hidden]
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk