From: Matt S Trentini (matt_trentini_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-01-01 20:06:49
Brian Braatz wrote:
> I will end my thoughts here with the (repeated) suggestion that making a
> thin layer above the current WxWindows will allow for a Boost.Gui in a
> short timeframe that has an incredible API interface.
I guess I'm suggesting something a little more exotic than developing a
"thin layer". The folks at wxWindows have begun discussions on what the
next major revision of their library will look like. They seem to
recognise that their API and general design is about due for some
serious rework. For example, they are considering relaxing the
requirement that it works with old compilers (so templates, exceptions
and standard library classes are candidates for native use) and
overhauling their event system.
These are areas that the boost community obviously has solid experience
What I'm suggesting (though not very clearly!) is that we work together
to make wxWidgets 3.x. Maybe we call it boost-gui. Or boost-wxgui.
We can leverage off the huge body of existing GUI code that they have
while helping to redesign the API's/design to "modernise" the library.
It's always hard trying to get two seperate groups of people working
toward a common goal but in this case it seems that our interests are
heading along similar paths...
What do people think? Is it worth starting to open channels to see if
such a collaboration is possible? Do we want a collaboration or do we
want more stringent control? If we were to collaborate what would be
the guidelines (license, decision making, ownership etc)? Do we think
the wxWidgets devs are the right ones to be collaborating with?
Personally, I think wxWidgets has some flaws but is still an excellent
library - IMHO it's currently the best option for C++ GUI development.
If we were able to seriously address those flaws with some boost
know-how then I'd be in GUI-developer utopia. :)
PS Another (less tasteful) alternative is that we could fork from their
mainline and start hacking wxWidgets into what we believe it should be.
I'd only be interested in this option if the collaboration option had
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk