Overview
Examples
Screenshots
Comparisons
Applications
Download
Documentation
Tutorials
Bazaar
Status & Roadmap
FAQ
Authors & License
Forums
Funding Ultimate++
Search on this site
Search in forums












SourceForge.net Logo
Home » Developing U++ » External resources » opinions about FOX-TOOLKIT
opinions about FOX-TOOLKIT [message #304] Wed, 07 December 2005 20:01 Go to next message
fudadmin is currently offline  fudadmin
Messages: 1298
Registered: November 2005
Location: London, UK
Senior Contributor
Administrator
have used FOX-TOOLKIT?
http://www.fox-toolkit.org/
Re: opinions about FOX-TOOLKIT [message #306 is a reply to message #304] Wed, 07 December 2005 20:39 Go to previous messageGo to next message
fudadmin is currently offline  fudadmin
Messages: 1298
Registered: November 2005
Location: London, UK
Senior Contributor
Administrator
Quote:


I would like to spend some words about FOX to make an example on why new and light GUI toolkits havenít been token in consideration by most of programmers (TK, FLTK, and so on). Personally, FOX is a toolkit good enough to create professional projects, but its structure is too similiar to both wxWidgets and Qt ones. I would prefer making a software with wxWidgets rather than using FOX, and another reason is the language bindings which are not updated to the latest releases or are much instable.

Nowadays, new GUI toolkits (everything in the world) must have something new and particuliar to be used instead of already existing projects, and IMHO, FOX is not a revolutionary project.

More http://www.lethalman.net/?p=5
Re: opinions about FOX-TOOLKIT [message #324 is a reply to message #304] Thu, 08 December 2005 11:32 Go to previous messageGo to next message
fudadmin is currently offline  fudadmin
Messages: 1298
Registered: November 2005
Location: London, UK
Senior Contributor
Administrator
from http://www.newplanetsoftware.com/jx/compare.php
Quote:

FOX appears to be a widget set rather than an application framework.

FOX messages are not the same as JX messages. FOX defines the messages in the target, which strongly couples each source to it, since each source has to know the appropriate message for each of its targets. This is not as serious as it seems, however, because FOX messages are designed to simulate Objective C's ability to redirect work to other objects. In this case, the source needs to know how to keep the target happy. Note that there are much cleaner ways to achieve this in C++. One method is to define a base class and then instantiate one of several derived classes at run-time to get the desired behavior.

JX, on the other hand, defines messages in the source, which promotes loose coupling since the source simply broadcasts, and each target does whatever is appropriate. This is solves a different problem from that of FOX messages. JX messages help implement Model-View-Controller designs.

In addition, FOX messages consist of an integer and a void*, so one needs to cast from a void* to get the associated state. This breaks the type safety provided by C++. JX messages are objects, so they can be downcast safely.
Re: opinions about FOX-TOOLKIT [message #330 is a reply to message #324] Thu, 08 December 2005 13:41 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mirek is currently offline  mirek
Messages: 12126
Registered: November 2005
Ultimate Member
BTW, reading through both Jx and FOX, I have seen two "advantages" listed that in fact are disadvantages (and unfortunately, U++ has both :):

- FOX lists as advantage that apps look the same on any platform. Anyway, users require quite opposite (native look&feel)

- Jx (also wxWidgets, etc...) lists as advantage that it is "complete framework". However, that is not felt as advantage for many users...

There is not much we can do about second one (yes, U++ complete platform as well - ok, at least it is a good platform Smile, anyway we can try to fight first problem via chameleon...
Re: opinions about FOX-TOOLKIT [message #331 is a reply to message #330] Thu, 08 December 2005 13:47 Go to previous messageGo to next message
fudadmin is currently offline  fudadmin
Messages: 1298
Registered: November 2005
Location: London, UK
Senior Contributor
Administrator
luzr wrote on Thu, 08 December 2005 07:41

BTW, reading through both Jx and FOX, I have seen two "advantages" listed that in fact are disadvantages (and unfortunately, U++ has both :):

- FOX lists as advantage that apps look the same on any platform. Anyway, users require quite opposite (native look&feel)

- Jx (also wxWidgets, etc...) lists as advantage that it is "complete framework". However, that is not felt as advantage for many users...

There is not much we can do about second one (yes, U++ complete platform as well - ok, at least it is a good platform Smile, anyway we can try to fight first problem via chameleon...


WideStudio has skinning...
Re: opinions about FOX-TOOLKIT [message #338 is a reply to message #331] Thu, 08 December 2005 14:08 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mirek is currently offline  mirek
Messages: 12126
Registered: November 2005
Ultimate Member
Chameleon is supposed to be both skinning and adapting technology. The core of it very advanced and simple skinning system, other part will be "detection" system that detects actual look&feel and adjusts U++ skin according to it.
Re: opinions about FOX-TOOLKIT [message #350 is a reply to message #338] Thu, 08 December 2005 14:58 Go to previous messageGo to next message
fudadmin is currently offline  fudadmin
Messages: 1298
Registered: November 2005
Location: London, UK
Senior Contributor
Administrator
luzr wrote on Thu, 08 December 2005 08:08

Chameleon is supposed to be both skinning and adapting technology. The core of it very advanced and simple skinning system, other part will be "detection" system that detects actual look&feel and adjusts U++ skin according to it.


It will definetly be a hit if it lets the user to choose between different custom skins and system or desktop look.
Re: opinions about FOX-TOOLKIT [message #1071 is a reply to message #350] Sun, 19 February 2006 14:45 Go to previous messageGo to next message
jadeite is currently offline  jadeite
Messages: 42
Registered: January 2006
Member
fudadmin wrote on Thu, 08 December 2005 08:58

luzr wrote on Thu, 08 December 2005 08:08

Chameleon is supposed to be both skinning and adapting technology. The core of it very advanced and simple skinning system, other part will be "detection" system that detects actual look&feel and adjusts U++ skin according to it.


It will definetly be a hit if it lets the user to choose between different custom skins and system or desktop look.



You know, I have been saying that OSX should be the next major dev task that should be completed, but the more I think about, I am changing my mind. I think the chameleon should be the next major dev task that should be finished after the BGAR business is done. I'm guessing there will be some low-level adjustments needed in core code to make this possible. Best to do the chameleon first as it will be a big hit, but while doing chameleon always have in back of your mind x-platform compatibility so you don't have to make major changes while porting to OSX and wince.

Just my thoughts over morning coffee.
Cheers
Re: opinions about FOX-TOOLKIT [message #1073 is a reply to message #1071] Sun, 19 February 2006 15:12 Go to previous message
mirek is currently offline  mirek
Messages: 12126
Registered: November 2005
Ultimate Member
In fact, that is exactly the plan:

- new Draw first (so we do not need to reimplement Chameleon for it..)

- then Chameleon

- then, with both available, WinCE and MacOS X

Mirek
Previous Topic: Static OOP (C++...) vs Dynamic OOP (CLOS...)
Next Topic: New GUI (toolkit?) with skinning - based on AGG
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Sat Dec 14 20:29:09 CET 2019

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01237 seconds