Le mercredi 12 avril 2006 à 12:21 +0300, Tommi Hassinen a écrit : > On Tue, 11 Apr 2006, Michael Banck wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 11, 2006 at 03:25:43PM +0300, Tommi Hassinen wrote: > >> > >> Just FYI, I'm still thinking whether VERSION_2_BRANCH and HEAD really > >> should look the same, or should I change some of the GTK gui-elements into > >> OpenGL-rendered ones (I mean the main menu and toolbar buttons). The > >> change would help porting the program to other platforms in future. > > > > Oh, why that? GTK+ is fairly portable in theory, and it provides a > > common look 'n feel at least on GNU/Linux. > > Hello, > > I thought about this more yesterday evening, and I think I have found a > solution ; I'll explain it later. > > The reason I started worrying about portability and OpenGL gui, is about > longer-term plans and strategies. In addition to desktop apps, the net and > web browsers are getting more important in future. I have been learning > about them, and I would like to be ready to do something with them when > the time is right. Now when a new stable release is coming, it's time to > make important decisions for the future, and to make sure we are not > "painting ourselves in a corner", limiting our choices in future. > > Perhaps at some point in future we would like to have an OpenGL-based > browser plugin (let's call it "npghemical" for the NPAPI plugin > programming interface) for displaying molecules on web pages. It would be > easiest to use an OpenGL-only gui for a plugin like that. Of course there > is already Jmol which is doing very good job at displaying molecules using > a java applet ; therefore it's uncertain whether a native plugin is worth > the effort, time will tell. I already have a mozilla plugin in gchemutils. It has not many feature at present, but I intend to extend it when time permits. It is based on GtkGLExt and OpenBabel. I do not see why an OpenGL-only plugin make things easier. If you need buttons or other controls, any toolkit will work. > > I think the current GUI could need some face-lifting to look more > > GNOMEish, but I didn't have the time to look into this so far (and I'm > > no GTK hacker (yet?)). > > > > If you commit to a GTK GUI, maybe we could get help from some of the > > GNOME artists (for our icons), UI and usability people. > > > > Otherwise, maybe reducing the GUI to a thin layer around the GL canvas > > and motivating people to write e.g. native Cocoa and Windows GUIs would > > make sense? > > I agree on the benefits of GTK (also those mentioned in Geoff's mail). It > is definitely so that the "flagship version" is now and in future the GTK > version (re-implementing all those glade-dialogs alone would be a horrible > job). There are good chances that the GTK version can be ported on other > platforms (win32, MacOS) in future. > > In additon to the GTK version, I'm trying to do things at HEAD version so > that also other native desktop app versions could be made (like win32, > MacOs). I have limited interest for a win32 version (I used to know the > win32 API ~10 years ago) but it's not a big priority. I have seen that > writing code for a couple of platforms simultaneously will result in a > better quality result, and I have no interest to work on a GLUT version > anymore (ghemical-1 used to have one) since no-one would ever use it. > Perhaps there would be use for even a limited win32-version. > > Like I mentioned, I found a solution how I can leave room for other future > developments (like a plugin version) as well : I can take some stuff out > from ghemical source tree and make a new library of it (let's call it > libghemicalviews for now). The new library contains code for rendering > different views using OpenGL commands but is agnostic to all platform- > dependent "widget sets". > > Regards, > > Tommi > > _______________________________________________ > ghemical-devel mailing list > ghemical-devel at bioinformatics.org > http://bioinformatics.org/mailman/listinfo/ghemical-devel >