FLTK logo

Re: [fltk.coredev] Re: FLTK 1.4.0 release schedule

FLTK matrix user chat room
(using Element browser app)   FLTK gitter user chat room   GitHub FLTK Project   FLTK News RSS Feed  
  FLTK Apps      FLTK Library      Forums      Links     Login 
 All Forums  |  Back to fltk.coredev  ]
 
Previous Message ]New Message | Reply ]Next Message ]

Re: Re: FLTK 1.4.0 release schedule Albrecht Schlosser Jan 22, 2022  
 
On 1/22/22 13:00 'melcher....@googlemail.com' via fltk.coredev wrote:
tl;dr : yes, that sounds great

Welcome.

long answer and question:

Fluid: I have reorganised Fluid a little bit and fixed a few pressing issues, like i18n, dnd, insertion points, etc. . Fluid itself probably needs a separate post though.

What "post" do you mean?

Fluid has an own chapter in the docs. Do you think that (some of) the new features should be mentioned?


Preferences: are 80% done and fix the most common issues: where is my file, locale, etc. . Still to do is the location of files on Linux.

Every step forward is a good step. I'd like to have the XDG stuff (for others: location of preferences files) implemented in 1.4.0 though because we changed the location of preferences files anyway. You (Matthias) documented this in the Fl_Preferences docs and I added a paragraph in the "Migration" chapter of the docs:
https://fltk.gitlab.io/fltk/migration_1_4.html#migration_1_4_preferences

This could maybe be improved if need be.

Text Styles: background color should be relatively easy to implement

You mean styles in Fl_Text_Display? Would be great to have, I think this has been a FAQ.

OTOH: there is some dead code that I started just before my long break.
  • So, the Nano/Pico stuff, should we remove that before the big release? It's not working as intended, still some users ran with it and implemented half-working stuff. IMHO, if it isn't done, it has no place in a release (or better: I should have never checked that in to begin with. Sorry!)
  • The Android stuff is also very half-assed. It pollutes some of the CMake files and it is just a proof of concept. Yet some users seem to have at least tried it. Same question: remove all traces, fix it, and put it in 1.5.0? Or leave it and drag it along?

From a maintenance point I vote clearly for removing this stuff: Android, Nano/Pico, SDL(2), whatever. As you say, this unfinished stuff pollutes CMake files (and is probably not available in configure/make builds) and makes things more complicated than necessary. Users are asking things about unfinished stuff and some are even criticizing non-working (experimental) drivers.

I'd love to remove all this for a clean release.

I've had a hard time to integrate my new (WIP) Fl_Timeout features [1] in the Android port and I'm pretty sure I broke something because I can't test it. There's also much unimplemented stuff in these "Android drivers" which seems to be copied from the Windows (WinAPI) drivers which is weird anyway (although it's all deactivated by #if's). I didn't touch the pico and SDL drivers which *would* need changes.

It's also a problem if you search for a function or global and find it in experimental and/or dead code!

These are all points for the removal of unused, unfinished, beta, experimental driver stuff from the official repo.

+1 to remove these experimental drivers from the master branch!

Nothing would be deleted from the repository anyway, all this stuff would still be there. We could set a tag or create a branch "experimental" at the current point and, if anybody wants it, they can check out this branch (or tag). They could even fork it...

If you (Matthias) want to continue development of the Android port or any of the other ports I suggest to do it in an own fork where interested users can find it and we can decide to merge it back if (when) it gets ready to use. If this is an "official" fork we can even leave a note in README.experimental.txt (or README.Android.txt) where to find the experimental code.

I'll add more as things come to mind.

I hope there's not too much that needs to go into 1.4.0. ;-)

----  New Timeout handling (work in progress) ----

[1] My Fl_Timeout branch can be found in my fork: https://github.com/Albrecht-S/fltk/tree/Fl_Timeout
This branch builds and works fine on all major platforms (one or two test programs can't build with MSVC but that's not important).
The new internal Fl_Timeout class deals with all Fl::add_timeout() etc. features in a platform independent way and thus removes lots of platform specific code. All timeout related code is cross-platform and the same on all platforms with one minor known exception: timer resolution on Windows may be lower than on other platforms.

If anybody likes to test, please check out my fork and try branch Fl_Timeout.

$ git clone https://github.com/Albrecht-S/fltk.git fltk-timeout
$ cd fltk-timeout
$ git checkout Fl_Timeout

... build with configure/make or CMake, no further options required.

All feedback with "real programs" would be appreciated!

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "fltk.coredev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to fltkcoredev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/fltkcoredev/2a9b1186-2a88-88ae-561c-954b91444949%40online.de.
Direct Link to Message ]
 
     
Previous Message ]New Message | Reply ]Next Message ]
 
 

Comments are owned by the poster. All other content is copyright 1998-2024 by Bill Spitzak and others. This project is hosted by The FLTK Team. Please report site problems to 'erco@seriss.com'.