nanogui: Re: nano-X/Microwindows to X11 compliance
Subject:
Re: nano-X/Microwindows to X11 compliance
From:
"Greg Haerr" ####@####.####
Date:
9 Aug 2000 17:43:59 -0000
Message-Id: <02f001c00229$df903ae0$6817dbd0@censoft.com>
: I have a brief, obvious question for you:
: Can programs written for X11 build without modification for the
: MicroWindows/Nano-X library?
No. The purpose of Nano-X wasn't to build another X, which
is what we'd need to do to get the data structure compatibility
that you're asking about.
Instead, Nano-X tries to implement the drawing features of
X, without X's overhead, while keeping the approach to drawing
close to X's.
:
: This expands to the following series of questions:
: Is the nomenclature for data structures equivalent? Is there a Pixel
: datatype, with the same 'fields' as found in X11?
The data structures in particular have not been duplicated yet,
since most of the work is performed on the server, rather
than in the client library. This *may* change if we decide to
add client-side image support.
: Do equivalent function calls use the same calling parameters, in the
: same order as found in X11?
Yes, many of the calls are _very_ similar. That is, they use
drawable id's, GC id's etc. I've tried to keep this abstraction
equivalent, which allows for easy porting of most applications.
There is no Display *.
Are the return types equivalent?
Most return types are void, but of course some return IDs.
: What would need to be done to port a program written for X11 to
: Nano-X/Microwindows? (take, for example, XClock, or XSnow)
In most cases, it's pretty easy to port Xlib programs. However, the
color model is completely different, by design. We use the much simpler
RGB color model, rather than X's visuals. I've been thinking of
putting together a macro library for convenience, but there are
some issues with this.
:
: Thank you for creating MicroWindows/Nano-X, and in advance for reading
: this email and responding.
Thanks. I'm glad you're considering using it!
Regards,
Greg
