Re: SourceForge GWindows project

[David Botton <david@botton.com>]

<<
1) Keep it Win32 only

*** I'd like to atleast start with windows for more than one reason. 
Yes, I'm running windows so i'd like to see it on windows :-).  I also 
think that there's a big windows user base that might be waiting for 
just that kind of binding to exist.  To me, being I'm on windows, other 
platforms are secondary, but with the growth of the linux popularity, I 
think it's starting to become a platform that cannot be neglected.
>>

GWindows for Win32 has already existed for a few years now. See 
http://www.gnavi.org

<<
2) multi-platform is fine

***  I would consider multi platform fine as far as it's concidered in 
the development effort (as in keep low level access in seperate 
packages so it's easy to switch from one platform to the other) but to 
me anyways it's not really a must per se, definitaly not at the start.
>>

GWindows is a Win32 framework at heart. I have began porting that 
"style" of binding and keeping as many interfaces as possible to some 
other APIs now. The original GWindows is not changing.

I think the best comparison is Microsoft's MFC for Macintosh.

<<
3) Here's a good name ...

For a good name, well if we already know that it will be for windows, 
gtkada, macOS then any name would do.  GWindows is how I know GWindows 
by but indeed it can change.  GUI-Windows as in "The Graphical User 
Interface for _________________ <-- Insert Operating System here.).  
GUI - PlaformName ??
>>

I am sort of partial to what I called my project from a few years ago, 
GNAVI and the framework names GWindows and GNATCOM. Part of the reason 
I chose the name was do to the fact that acronym worked and Navi is the 
way to say prophet in Hebrew, sort of a play on the Oracle of Delphi.

I imagine though that if Stephen Leake is planning to fork my code and 
use it in a new project that he would likely change the name from 
GNAVI, GWindows and GNATCOM.

I'd say AdaCOM for GNATCOM, but that was its original name before it 
was supported by ACT and since AdaCOM code may be out there a better 
choice would be something like AdaWin32COM. Perhaps  AdaWin32 for 
GWindows and AdaWin32Builder instead of GNAVI for a  GUI Builder.

While I used a number of GNAT.* packages and some GNAT shortcuts there 
is nothing per se that prevents the packages from being moved over to 
work with most other compilers as well, so the Ada* name is likely a 
good choice.

The best part of the GPL/GMGPL is that it allows for people to advance 
others inventions and technologies freely with their own ideas. As a 
believer in the FSF, not per se the new "Oepn Source" movement, I look 
forward with great pleasure and pride to seeing what new direction my 
code will take and also look forward to merging the best of those new 
developments back in to GNAVI, too.

David Botton