ANNOUNCE - graphics package
Mon Jan 19 12:32:41 CET 2004
From: "Joe Armstrong" <joe@REDACTED>
> In the widget framework all S/W layers have accesses to the display
> socket (via a library) so *any* process (including application layer
> processes) can bypass all library code and talk *directly* with the
> X-server itself - ie any S/W at any point can do any operation
> directly against the X-sever and does not need to go through a library
This is powerful, but it basically means that every user of ex11 would need to
have a good or very good understanding of the X11 workings and protocols. Which
may be quite a lot, if all one wants is to have a couple of buttons to press and
some text input.
> It turns out that with 20 odd protocol messages one can do *most* of
> the fun things that are possible with X. The entire design of
> virtually all widget sets (motif, GTK etc) seems to be predicated by
> the desire to simulate concurrency with callbacks.
I think there is a nother reason too: hiding some of the complexity, and letting
programmers concentrate on the job at hand, not X11.
> In ex11 I do *exactly the opposite* and expose the concurrency to the
And it fits Erlang very well!
> All the top-level widgets speak directly to the X-server, and
> callbacks are not necessary - this *greatly* simplifies the
> programming model.
I'm not sure I understand you fully. We still have to tell the widget what to do
when it receives an "onClick" event, don't we? This can be done with a
traditional callback, or by letting it send a (possibly refined) message to an
application process - but I don't see any fundamental difference. It's still a
link to application-provided code.
Or maybe we are talking about different things?
More information about the erlang-questions