| Re: [hatari-devel] Hatari UI with Qt? |
[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.tuxfamily.org/hatari-devel Archives
]
- To: hatari-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [hatari-devel] Hatari UI with Qt?
- From: Didier Plaza <didier.plaza@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 00:01:33 +0100
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=/6ZUlNW+WPSdWUxWujy26zc8rMITlKKAiV0GhGCmXvM=; b=rxnOM52TduKqJYrhq64IdvNweqwhFMzrQkaQISx6KY1dusyXZnLktvKaepAaAAEFZN cMlNifOuy9l422jwwooTDhkyF6K6S5wCqH5fvuFtH5kS6rqkSmqabZWMJtYxeWVe40IY Szq2o6LyC3xEBDMA88ed55hjDKCVUUSeis90Gu7mfiwL041h0Cx9grNOVjGVQTdlXub/ GV16a0SJxJ/rD5LLkAF2OXyleOt5CK21c1PVl/XxuW+Wy0HyV70wizzGpeHtN0BS5Mgb VsQs8mg9hLohc/NCKH/MaE02/RslXoUzeFDMDN2YXaWfp+n5sAtkpAXwG+paQ7gc+WRs /6zw==
Hi,
I think that Hatari UI could be Qt, GTK, Cocoa or MFC based Framework. Hatari (the emulation layer) is the depency of the UI Layer and shouldn't have dependency to UI Frameworks other than SDL.
One of the method could be to use callback hooks via a special UI component.
By default all callbacks should be based on SDL UI, but if a part of code 'register' a new callback, this should replace the SDL one.
Maybe i'm wrong, but i think it's better to keep hatari as an engine and don't introduce UI dependency into it.
Regards,
Didier
Le 25 nov. 2012 à 23:03, Eero Tamminen a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> I was giving some thought for Hatari UI done with
> a compiled language and some widget toolkit (not SDL).
>
> Is everybody still thinking that Qt would be the best alternative
> for this? Even in the light of the Qt ownership changes and some
> uncertainty of its future?
>
> As Qt is C++, it means that:
> - Hatari will have Qt & C++-compiler dependencies
> - Either all code is compiled with:
> - C++ compiler and needs to be cleaned of C stuff that's
> not valid in C++ (most already done I guess)
> - UI part is compiled with C++ compiler and rest is
> compiled with C-compiler in which case headers need
> to declared that prototypes in them aren't C++ ones
> (i.e. those symbols don't have C++ mangling when linked)
>
> Which one of the latter options it should be?
>
>
> I could probably start looking into coding the UI itself next
> month, if somebody will later on look into CMake integration
> for that. :-)
>
>
> - Eero
>
>