apollo@ecf.toronto.edu (Vince Pugliese) (07/24/88)
for those looking for a user-interface toolkit that
is more or less independent of windowing system though
X will be needed have a look at openDialogue from Apollo.
hope this is of some help.
vince pugliese
apollo@ecf.toronto.edu
.gjc@rti.UUCP (Greg Clary) (07/26/88)
From: Greg Clary <gjc> Message-Id: <8807252129.AA11897@rti.rti.org> To: apollo@ecf.toronto.edu Subject: Re: windowing system independent -- user interface toolkit Newsgroups: comp.graphics,comp.windows.misc In-Reply-To: <677@mv06.ecf.toronto.edu> Organization: Research Triangle Institute, RTP, NC Cc: In article <677@mv06.ecf.toronto.edu> you write: > >for those looking for a user-interface toolkit that >is more or less independent of windowing system though >X will be needed have a look at openDialogue from Apollo. >hope this is of some help. > vince pugliese > apollo@ecf.toronto.edu >. Is openDialogue the same as Domain Dialogue? I am working on a project, and attempting to use Domain Dialogue, but I am finding it a bit inflexible. I am attempting to write a more friendly user-interface to the Display Manager and various tools on the system. My initial goal is to implement a menu-system similar to the X Window System's uwm. (The menuing portion of uwm, that is). In other words, I want to have menus which are defined at run-time. This is possible with domain dialogue, but a bit messy. I believe I need a set of routines which are a lower level than domain dialogue, but a higher level than the GPR routines. ) do you have any suggestions? Thanks, gjc@rti.rti.org
mlandau@bbn.com (Matt Landau) (07/26/88)
In comp.windows.misc, apollo@ecf.toronto.edu (Vince Pugliese) writes: >for those looking for a user-interface toolkit that >is more or less independent of windowing system though >X will be needed... Contradiction in terms. "Window system independent" means you do NOT require X11, or any other particular underlying window system, for the client application to compile and run. That's the whole point. -- Matt Landau Oblivion gallops closer, mlandau@bbn.com favoring the spur, sparing the rein.
urban@algol (Michael Urban) (07/27/88)
In article <11334@jade.BBN.COM> mlandau@bbn.com (Matt Landau) writes: >In comp.windows.misc, apollo@ecf.toronto.edu (Vince Pugliese) writes: >>for those looking for a user-interface toolkit that is more or less >>independent of windowing system though X will be needed... > >Contradiction in terms. "Window system independent" means you do >NOT require X11, or any other particular underlying window system, >for the client application to compile and run. That's the whole point. Yes and no. The real world is occasionally an illogical place. We have similar requirements here, in which the toolkit should be fairly WS independent, but must first be built on X (for example, because the customer is currently using HP workstations). However, X dependencies are not allowed, since someday the package might have to run on NeWS or Macintoshes or some yet unwritten base. It is a bit like requiring a Curses-like package that will be operating system independent, but must be able to run on Unix. Mike Urban ...!trwrb!trwspp!spp2!urban "You're in a maze of twisty UUCP connections, all alike"