Re: [Tnfox-discussion] Re: Re[4]: [Foxgui-users]Apple Support - FOX future [was: MacOSX and event->state flags]

[Niall D. <s_s...@ne...>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 1 Dec 2004 at 17:08, Dimitris Servis wrote:

> I vote for the CVS and I totally agree for anyone to use whatever I
> have ever submitted. I must say here that Niall did not do just some
> small extensions, but opened the TnFox CVS some time ago (13/11) so
> his experience is more than useful.

Well thank you! The Tn parts of TnFOX are mostly stable nowadays, but 
I really do need to do a merge of FOX development and get another 
release out.

BTW, go SVN rather than CVS for any new project. SVN is now very 
stable indeed.

> 1) Who will be responsible to maintain the CVS. Jeroen will never do
> that, obviously. I do not know if I can help, because I do not know
> how :-/ You'll probably flog me for this one, but I have to be
> honest.... If we do it, then someone who has the abilities and will
> must do it. So we need one or more leaders. Then, we have to decide on
> the license, if it is going to be the same as for FOX, and if FOX will
> remain free forever. I am in favor of both, just for the record.

If you guys really want to do this, then obviously I would prefer you 
went with TnFOX as your baseline as that helps my interests. I have 
noticed for some time that a tension is building where the users are 
getting increasingly pissed off and it's going to result in a fork. 
Yet another fork throws away a year of my full-time development in 
creating TnFOX so I really would prefer the jump to go in my 
direction if it's going to happen. In other words, don't refork FOX, 
extend TnFOX.

I therefore indicate that I would be happy to let others have write 
access to development branches of the TnFOX SVN. If the development 
branch proves good, it gets merged to mainline. I offer my 
coordination here as admin.

> 2) Let's not fight Jeroen, let's attract him to the CVS gently.
> Fighting Jeroen is bad, working along with him will be good.

I agree. If this can be avoided, it would be good. Too many forks 
kill the project.

> There may be many
> people that will prefer to stick with the old way, since it works until
> now. Remember, there are big companies that use FOX also, such as Abaqus,
> you do not know it unless you use it. Will they switch to the CVS version?

They will if it serves their needs. TnFOX's extensions are as good or 
better than anything in Qt v4 and they're all totally exception aware 
which no other C++ toolkit I know of can claim. There is no reason to 
expect that such a toolkit wouldn't become the best C++ toolkit on 
the market including commercial ones.

> What do we need the CVS
> for? More widgets or better FOX core? What is the most expedient of
> the two? If it is widgets, then we should go for it right now, and
> make a CVS of all the features we want, along with FOX core, but leave
> it intact for a while, until people start to use the CVS.

My list of FOX priorities in order:

1. Full unicode support. TnFOX already provides translation.
2. Theming, then Windows, X11 and MacOS X themes.
3. TnFOX style documentation for all FOX classes.
4. Exception awareness for all existing FOX code and conversion of OS 
errors to exception throws.

Extra GUI widgets add themselves actually, and furthermore must come 
after priority 1 and 2 as there will be widget design changes needed.

Cheers,
Niall





-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: idw's PGP-Frontend 4.9.6.1 / 9-2003 + PGP 8.0.2

iQA/AwUBQa5YhcEcvDLFGKbPEQLS3QCgjIIWy/zUD5jBNQaH4wfKPPTiB68An0Sk
D7dDx9z+ohC571bkbM9yMcOJ
=59rI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----