image
image

Go Back   macosx.com > Design, Media, Programming & Scripting > Software Programming & Web Scripting

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #1  
Old May 21st, 2001, 09:27 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 10
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
drewangst is on a distinguished road
I've seen a lot of posts the touch on the subject but I haven't seen any major discussion on it.
Is anyone working on or considering working on creating X11 wrappers for Cocoa? Basically you just compile your X windows app with these libraries. It seems like it would be a great way to get more people using OS X.
It would be good to release it under the BSD license rather then GPL. This would allow companies that are porting their apps from Solaris to Linux/FreeBSD to create an OS X port with minimal effort. This could help legitimize OS X for the corporate workstation. (kind of like what's happening to linux right now)

Andrew
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old May 21st, 2001, 03:01 PM
strobe's Avatar
Puny Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 795
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
strobe is on a distinguished road
There are several problems with this proposal:

1) X11 is not just a graphics library

2) If I were porting an X11 app, the first thing I would do is throw away all the X11 code even if I could retain it. 90% of X11 code is drawing stuff which is taken care of by various Views like tables, text, images, buttons, sliders, etc. The exceptions to this rule are mostly cheesy 2D games not using SDL.

3) There is absolutely no point to porting an app to OS X if you're not going to change the interface. Writing a library allowing X11 programmers to recompile their aps will result in X11 apps. X11 code results in X11 apps. You may as well run rootless X11.

4) X11 apps generally suck ass and aren't worth porting. Those which do not are for the most part commercial and ought to be ported properly.
__________________
---
>80 column hard wrapped e-mail is not a sign of intelligent
>life
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old May 21st, 2001, 04:15 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 10
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
drewangst is on a distinguished road
>1) X11 is not just a graphics library
Needless nitpicking, a useless statement. I know it's not just a library. I'm just trying to simplify the description.

>2) If I were porting an X11 app, the first thing I would do is throw away all the X11 code even if I could retain it. 90% of X11 code is drawing stuff which is taken care of by various Views like tables, text, images, buttons, sliders, etc. The exceptions to this rule are mostly cheesy 2D games not using SDL.

That takes time. What if I didn't have to throw away anything and could recompile my app with this wrapper? Couldn't I get my product out the door faster? Wouldn't it be just as usable as before?

>3) There is absolutely no point to porting an app to OS X if you're not going to change the interface. Writing a library allowing X11 programmers to recompile their aps will result in X11 apps. X11 code results in X11 apps. You may as well run rootless X11.

Yes there is a point to porting X11 apps to OS X. Apparently you missed it. Say I have a piece of software and I want to port that to OS X with minimal effort. If I could just recompile it with Cocoa and the X11 cocoa wrappers, then I wouldn't have to do much else to get it running on OS X. Why would someone want to redesign a perfectly good interface just to port it to some onther os?

>4) X11 apps generally suck ass and aren't worth porting. Those which do not are for the most part commercial and ought to be ported properly.

I've seen a lot of very good freeware X11 apps, but that's not my main focus. This would give companies a way to get their apps up and running in a short time.
Then after it is out you can work at your leasure to port it properly. (mainly for performance)

You missed the whole point of my post. I'm thinking from
a mac workstation point of view. Basically there are tons of commercial apps out, that are very good and very useful. I'm not talking about all the freeware open source apps, some of which are very good.
Runnng a rootless version of X if fine for a typical person using their mac as at home, but it wouldn't fly in a corporate environment, plus rootless X is still alpha. I'm talking about a company using macs as their workstations as an alternative to a Sun workstations. This is starting to happen with Linux.

Andrew

Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old May 22nd, 2001, 05:17 AM
strobe's Avatar
Puny Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 795
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
strobe is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally posted by drewangst
>1) X11 is not just a graphics library
Needless nitpicking, a useless statement. I know it's not just a library. I'm just trying to simplify the description.
It's not nitpicking, it's relevant to the question asked. A graphics library like quickdraw or say GRASS 5 display driver can fall within the scope of a view. Only some of X11 can be treated like this, a lot of it cannot and thus falls outside the scope of such a wrapper.

Quote:


>2) If I were porting an X11 app, the first thing I would do is throw away all the X11 code even if I could retain it. 90% of X11 code is drawing stuff which is taken care of by various Views like tables, text, images, buttons, sliders, etc. The exceptions to this rule are mostly cheesy 2D games not using SDL.

That takes time. What if I didn't have to throw away anything and could recompile my app with this wrapper? Couldn't I get my product out the door faster? Wouldn't it be just as usable as before?
It would be exactly like running rootless X11 therefore it's pointless.

It would not be a mac app, it would be an X11 app not technically using 'X11' but looking, behaving, in fact BEING an X11 app.

It would only be usable to somebody who wants to use an X11 app and not a mac app.

Quote:


>3) There is absolutely no point to porting an app to OS X if you're not going to change the interface. Writing a library allowing X11 programmers to recompile their aps will result in X11 apps. X11 code results in X11 apps. You may as well run rootless X11.

Yes there is a point to porting X11 apps to OS X. Apparently you missed it. Say I have a piece of software and I want to port that to OS X with minimal effort. If I could just recompile it with Cocoa and the X11 cocoa wrappers, then I wouldn't have to do much else to get it running on OS X. Why would someone want to redesign a perfectly good interface just to port it to some onther os?
Two reasons:

1) The result would be no different than using rootless X11

2) OS X has interface guidelines, something X11 programmers don't have a clue about.

I didn't miss anything. I'm running X11 applications using gparker's rootless patch for XFree86. What you're prosing wouldn't change anything. It's pointless.

Quote:


>4) X11 apps generally suck ass and aren't worth porting. Those which do not are for the most part commercial and ought to be ported properly.

I've seen a lot of very good freeware X11 apps, but that's not my main focus. This would give companies a way to get their apps up and running in a short time.
Then after it is out you can work at your leasure to port it properly. (mainly for performance)

You missed the whole point of my post. I'm thinking from
a mac workstation point of view. Basically there are tons of commercial apps out, that are very good and very useful. I'm not talking about all the freeware open source apps, some of which are very good.
Runnng a rootless version of X if fine for a typical person using their mac as at home, but it wouldn't fly in a corporate environment, plus rootless X is still alpha. I'm talking about a company using macs as their workstations as an alternative to a Sun workstations. This is starting to happen with Linux.

Andrew

What you're proposing would be absolutely no different than running rootless X11 in terms of interface. If rootless X11 isn't going to fly, neither is your suggestion. Unless you're going to waste time writing it yourself I would give up on the idea.
__________________
---
>80 column hard wrapped e-mail is not a sign of intelligent
>life
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old May 22nd, 2001, 06:57 AM
rharder's Avatar
Do not read this sign.
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Virginia, USA
Posts: 1,188
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
rharder is on a distinguished road
Anyhoo, I haven't heard of a project such as you describe, drewangst, but I agree that having an easy way to port apps from other windowing systems to OS X would be great.

-Rob
__________________
There are only 10 kinds of people in the world:
Those who understand binary, and those who don't.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old May 23rd, 2001, 05:04 AM
strobe's Avatar
Puny Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 795
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
strobe is on a distinguished road
great...except it breaks the expectation that when you see an app which appears to be a mac app, it behaves like one.

Say goodbye to HI uniformity, which is the only reason people use MacOS
__________________
---
>80 column hard wrapped e-mail is not a sign of intelligent
>life
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What is the practicallity of X11? adambyte Unix & X11 13 June 4th, 2003 10:15 AM
X11 and fink packages mr. k Unix & X11 5 April 13th, 2003 10:52 PM
BASIC X11 Questions chief Unix & X11 9 January 12th, 2003 01:07 PM
Available: Objective-C wrapper for Apple's XML parser library rharder Software Programming & Web Scripting 0 December 4th, 2002 10:55 AM
Rootless X Free on MacOSX phule Mac OS X System & Mac Software 29 May 19th, 2001 03:04 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:13 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1
Copyright 2000-2010 DigitalCrowd, Inc.