Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 17:28:40 -0000 From: Anarcat <anarcat@anarcat.ath.cx> To: David Johnson <david@usermode.org> Cc: freebsd-libh@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Installer Message-ID: <40C3CFB1.5080402@anarcat.ath.cx> Resent-Message-ID: <20040713172839.GC7317@shall.anarcat.ath.cx> In-Reply-To: <200406061827.53216.david@usermode.org> References: <3684.192.168.0.1.1086515427.squirrel@192.168.0.1> <200406061827.53216.david@usermode.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
David Johnson wrote: > I've been thinking about this for quite some time, and tried to rough > out some designs. The hardest thing to write is this generic UI > abstraction. The fact that no one has done it successfully before means > that it's probably not worth the effort. What does exist is at a much > higher level (dldialog). Trying to map one GUI API onto another is > extremely problematic. Even writing an API to match another (for > example a ncurses API that matches the Qt or GTK+ API) will cause > problems mapping character based UI concepts onto pixel based UI > concepts. > > I think the Linux distros have the right idea with their installers. > Have a common backend, but write separate UI frontends. This still > leaves considerable opportunities for common code. Only the actual UI > need be written twice (or three times). With my ol' libh maintainer hat on, (which I should really resign from now, btw) I totally agree with that. And I'll put it even better: if we struggle to build a "dual-head" GUI (text + graphics), we end up stuck at 2 interfaces. Hooking in a third one is much harder than doing it the other way around, which is: design the machine under, and then program as many views you need. Model-view-controller comes to my mind now, and I think it's appropriate. http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ModelViewController A.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?40C3CFB1.5080402>