From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,e092a534485c39a1 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Geoff Bull Subject: Re: What is the best Xwindow, window98 program to use frames withada? Date: 1999/12/13 Message-ID: <3854E379.EAD64907@acenet.com.au>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 560044365 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <9BBB0C9AF506D311A68E00902745A537BB86C3@fsxqpz04.usafa.af.mil> <384FA59B.3234C478@acenet.com.au> <82p3sp$cds$1@lure.pipex.net> <38524EC0.3283808A@acenet.com.au> <82tn88$n2k$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <830dk5$nbp$1@lure.pipex.net> X-Accept-Language: en Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Complaints-To: abuse@telstra.net X-Trace: nsw.nnrp.telstra.net 945087652 203.35.118.1 (Mon, 13 Dec 1999 23:20:52 EST) Organization: Customer of Telstra Big Pond Direct MIME-Version: 1.0 NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 23:20:52 EST Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1999-12-13T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Paul Hussein wrote: > > It really depends on what you want to do. It always does, doesn't it? > > I think the previous posts were assuming a very tight integration design and > code-wise, and I would say that would be a very dangerous way to go. I wasn't necessarily assuming that. But why is this any more dangerous than tightly coupling any gui to the backend? >This > would require good tool support or a lot of code on your side. I would try > to make the interfacing as simple as possible. You could say pass strings. > Then you would need only a send message, and get/receive message interface. Fine, but that is not generally how people write gui interfaces, not in my experience anyway. Well, actually I have seen this done with a Java GUI talking through a socket to what was once a command line application. > Tight integration with a tool would be a mistake. Write it as much > as possible independant of the tool, and if you could do it without the > tool, so much the better. Are you objecting to the use of a tool, or the tight integration? Obviously not to the tool because you later sugest using a tool (BX pro). As for tight integration, I'd say it depends on the situation. > I managed to get an Ada main program to kick off a Java class in its own > thread running within a JVM and pass messages between the two, and it did > not take that long. If you use Cafe1815 (see www.acenet.com.au/~gbull) this is trivial! > > Have you looked at using a GUI tool like BX Pro that can generate C, Java, > C++ for Win32 X or JDK. No, and I didn't see Ada in that list!? A port of Rapid to JNI would be possible (just hack the JGNAT port), but without a good binding generator it would be a *big* job. > You may be able to create a GUI for most platforms > using X and C/C++ and for windows using Win32 and C/C++. Yes, but if you already have a Java (or GtkAda) GUI, why would you bother? Cheers Geoff