On Tuesday, June 28, 2005, at 01:37 pm, Paolo Amoroso wrote:
Robert Strandh strandh@labri.fr writes:
Duncan Rose writes:
[...]
Do we need to take the vendor CLIMs into account at all?
I seriously doubt it. As far as the vendors are concerned, CLIM is dead.
What about users of commercial CLIM implementations? On the other hand, if those users are sufficiently interested in CLIM, they should probably put some pressure on their vendors.
Robert, Duncan (and others): are you suggesting that McCLIM should become a new CLIM standard[*]?
Personally I'd like to see McCLIM in a *state* where it could be used as a base for a new standard. An actual new standard is perhaps less important to me. OTOH a couple of extra chapters in the existing spec and some of the confusing or contradictory stuff being rewritten would be very cool.
I think in general the ideas behind CLIM stand up pretty well in the face of 'modern' windowing systems. The main lack as I see it in CLIM is support for i18n, particularly bidi text layout and multi-key input sequences. Perhaps more thought needs to be put into embedding frames too (DUIM is at a point where windows components can be embedded in DUIM frames; I don't see why CLIM couldn't be somewhere similar). (In fact Apple (or NeXT) seem to have copied silica wholesale as the windowing parts of Cocoa.)
All the rest (transparent window backgrounds? Arbitrarily shaped windows?) seem like eye candy to me. I care about them not ;-) (but would still like to see them supported. They may be already, if enough hoops are jumped through. Certainly I don't see any of them being *against* the specification).
Whilst the CLIM presentation paradigm isn't common I really don't see that it prevents anybody writing a CLIM app that fits in nicely with those other windowing systems (we might need to do something on selections. But even this I feel isn't a large divergence from the spec)
Perhaps I'm missing something fundamental regarding the facilities offered by other systems, I just can't think of much that needs adding to CLIM.
I think we'll just need an additional chapter or two rather than a new spec. - this is the benefit of starting with a 'mathematically complete' specification in the first place
-Duncan
Paolo
[*] For appropriate--and sufficiently fuzzy--values of "standard".
Lisp Propulsion Laboratory log - http://www.paoloamoroso.it/log _______________________________________________ mcclim-devel mailing list mcclim-devel@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mcclim-devel