Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ncis.tis.llnl.gov!lance.tis.llnl.gov!carlson
From: carlson@lance.tis.llnl.gov (John Carlson)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: UIDL/ADI Study Group
Summary: Extendable UIDL please
Message-ID: <414@ncis.tis.llnl.gov>
Date: 24 Aug 89 17:54:37 GMT
References: <8908232256.AA12268@gg.sei.cmu.edu>
Sender: news@ncis.tis.llnl.gov
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Lines: 23

In article <8908232256.AA12268@gg.sei.cmu.edu> rcs@SEI.CMU.EDU (rCs) writes:
>Assumptions
>
>   1. Any  proposed  solution  should  support  the  toolkit API (between
>      layers 3 & 4 in the reference model) being defined by P1201.1.
>
>   2. Any proposed UIDL/API solution should work well on at least  the  X
>      Window System and a character based terminal (i.e.  using Curses).

I sumbit that any proposed solution should support several toolkits in
layers 3 & 4.  This will allow a programmer to add site-specific tools.
	
>Toolkit Binding Mechanism
>
>   1. Support multiple window systems (i.e. X, PM, Mac).
>
>   2. Support multiple toolkits (i.e. 1201.1, Motif, OpenLook).

Easily extensible to support site-specific tools.  I can add one table
and a record in another to add a new toolkit to my poor man's UIDL.
Some UIDLs appear toolkit specific, without an easy way to add
new toolkits.  I am interested in the experiences of people who
added another toolkit to an existing UIDL.