Mailing-List: contact dev-help@corinthia.incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@corinthia.incubator.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <54FA3ABE.1010203@apache.org>
References: 
 <CAK2iWdTLQ0uVxSCHYhQ=kxJ4S99S=82ci9yHiNF5C6SMTW88xg@mail.gmail.com>
	<1E1565CC-F912-4B6D-BB6C-D7572172AA07@apache.org>
	<B959EB52-434D-4F36-B348-A31E65067517@apache.org>
	<CAK2iWdSuLxbRzsOcc7_-Zzn=skrO5MjjfyZO1iqV7_j_UaBXHA@mail.gmail.com>
	<005401d05830$4b284830$e178d890$@acm.org>
	<54FA3ABE.1010203@apache.org>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 13:44:54 +0100
Message-ID: 
 <CAK2iWdT466NfExTMNBx_w55OqKx1jvp9vLe+f-Kaq-LbX11tpQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: dfedit considerations and challenges.
From: jan i <jani@apache.org>
To: "dev@corinthia.incubator.apache.org" <dev@corinthia.incubator.apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0160b8648389450510ee842e

--089e0160b8648389450510ee842e
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Hi again.

A little update, after a couple of hints (opinions) from Peter I am
progressing well on playing with Qt for the editor.

The code will be made so that different platforms can have different
layout, but the same basic functionality.

I have now reached a point where I need to take a design decision, and I
wanted to hear the opinions of others.

Regarding the editor itself, I can
1) Implement the editor as HTML5 with the JS directly integrated. The text
to be edited would be in an independent iframe. The currect JS code seems
to go in this direction.
The Qt glue code, would in this case contain call back functions that
catches e.g. click events in the editor.

2) Implement the editor as Qt eleements and only the text to be edited is
in the HTML window. When a Qt element is clicked on, the corresponding JS
code will be executed in the HTML window.

The main difference is merely design. In the first we only use HTML5
whereas in the second we use Qt. The second seems to give us better design
posibilities.

In both cases we will (later) isolate the Qt elements we use, have a
library with exactly those as Catagory B source.

thoughts ?

rgds
jan I.


On 7 March 2015 at 00:39, Andrea Pescetti <pescetti@apache.org> wrote:

> Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>
>> I've installed Linux desktop distributions that also include Chrome
>> by default, so FireFox might not be that ubiquitous.  I don't have
>> any Linux installs at the moment, so I can't tell you
>>
>
> Nothing in Linux is ubiquitous, except some basic components. That's a
> sign of freedom/independence after all. But Firefox is surely available for
> almost all distributions, and Chromium (not Chrome) can be found on most
> modern distributions too.
>
> Regards,
>   Andrea.
>

--089e0160b8648389450510ee842e--