Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ncar!ico!attc!marbru From: marbru@attc.UUCP (Martin Brunecky) Newsgroups: comp.windows.x Subject: Re: Help on Motif builders Message-ID: <951@attc.UUCP> Date: 3 Jan 91 17:27:56 GMT References: <9101030322.AA07340@gh.sei.cmu.edu> Reply-To: marbru@auto-trol.UUCP (Martin Brunecky) Organization: Auto-trol Technology, Denver Lines: 32 In article <9101030322.AA07340@gh.sei.cmu.edu> Erik.Hardy@sei.cmu.EDU writes: > >then Martin Brunecky wrote: > >> The application writer must know/understand enough about the principles >> of the Xt user interface methods/style/operation mode to make the >> user interface writer's job even possible. > >In a word, no. The AW need know nothing about the underlying technology, be >it Xt, CORE, Xlib, PHIGS, or whatever. > I can't disagree more. The event driven model of Xt based application is so significantly different from the old-style, solicited-input approach, that an application writer MUST be aware of it. There are lots of applications with graphical user interface based on Apollo GPR, Sun's Pixrect, DEC UIS etc etc. Convreting, twisting and munging those applications to run under the X event driven model is a nightmare. Just because the *application* code was not *designed* for an event-driven user interface. You may suggest that a UI living as a separate process can solve the problem. May be - for the "ls" command. But my CAD/CAM applications are heavily graphics oriented. The graphics application design *must* be aware of the new interaction model, otherwise it is doomed to cause an enormous amount of pain. -- =*= Opinions presented here are solely of my own and not those of Auto-trol =*= Martin Brunecky {...}sunpeaks!auto-trol!marbru (303) 252-2499 (sometimes also: marbru@auto-trol.COM ) Auto-trol Technology Corp. 12500 North Washington St., Denver, CO 80241-2404