Ada Motif bindings ?

Ada Motif bindings ?

[Ron J Theriault]

   Does anyone (other than the developers), have any experience using 
Ada Motif bindings?  If so, I would appreciate any thoughts on your 
experience(s).  I am presently aware of two implementations of these
bindings: the DEC bindings, and the SERC bindings.  I am especially
interested in experiences in using these bindings with compilers other
than those with which they have been developed.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
  Ron Theriault       
  CS Department       
  Texas A&M Univ.      
  ron@cs.tamu.edu   

Re: Ada Motif bindings ?

[Larry Kahn]

In article <3aqvlm$4ih@news.tamu.edu>, ron@slx0.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Ron J Theriault) says:
>
>   Does anyone (other than the developers), have any experience using 
>Ada Motif bindings?  If so, I would appreciate any thoughts on your 
>experience(s).  I am presently aware of two implementations of these
>bindings: the DEC bindings, and the SERC bindings.  I am especially
>interested in experiences in using these bindings with compilers other
>than those with which they have been developed.
>

We have used the ics bindings on sun bsd and solaris with only a few minor problems.
(both using the vads compilers).


Laurence G. Kahn
Senior Software Engineer
Dynamics Research Corp.

Re: Ada Motif bindings ?

[Garlington KE]

Ron J Theriault (ron@slx0.NoSubdomain.NoDomain) wrote:
:    Does anyone (other than the developers), have any experience using 
: Ada Motif bindings? 

As a matter of fact, I'm currently writing a Motif application using the DEC
Motif package on VAX/VMS, using only a Motif textbook written for UNIX.

The Motif package is pretty good; the only thing missing that I've seen is
the XtSetArg function. However, setting the Arg array is pretty easy once
you get the hang of it. Callbacks are a little tricky, since Motif requires
everything to be passed by address (so some type checking is lost). However,
as log as you remember to pass strings aroung as a C_Types.Char_Ptr (C_Types,
along with Motif, are in the ADA$PREDEFINED directory), it's not hard to
work out the interface.

One other thing to remember: I couldn't find any examples in the ADA$EXAMPLES
directory that actually use the Motif package. They all use their own binding
to X and Motif.

Good luck!  
: -------------------------------------------------------------------
:   Ron Theriault       
:   CS Department       
:   Texas A&M Univ.      
:   ron@cs.tamu.edu   

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Garlington                  GarlingtonKE@lfwc.lockheed.com
F-22 Computer Resources         Lockheed Fort Worth Co.

If LFWC or the F-22 program has any opinions, they aren't telling me.

Re: Ada Motif bindings ?

[Timothy Barton]

In article <3aqvlm$4ih@news.tamu.edu>, you write:
|> 
|>    Does anyone (other than the developers), have any experience using 
|> Ada Motif bindings? ...

snip, snip

I have used the AXI bindings for over 2 years and am very pleased with them.
Our application is developed on SunOS and then recompiled for Solaris and
DEC Ultrix (and soon OSF/1) targets.  I have also used the SERC GNU bindings
several times over the last couple of months.

Both sets of bindings work fine.  I prefer the AXI bindings because the Ada
sources are much easier to read.  The GNU bindings are broken into many
more packages, and I found it frustrating to have to determine which new
package I needed when ever I added a new Xt call.  The AXI bindings IMHO are
much cleaner, there are only 4 or 5 packages: X11, Xt, Xm, Xmdef.  Some
sample code from each follows:

AXI
---
with Xt;

begin

  App_Context := Xt.CreateApplicationContext;
  Xt.AppInitialize( App_Context, "XAlto", options, 0, argv, fallback,
                    Args, 0, W(TOP_LEVEL) );

  menu_pane := Xm.CreatePulldownMenu( MB_Main, "", Args, 0 );

  Xt.AppMainLoop( App_Context );




SERC
----
with X_System_Utilities;
with X_Lib;                  use X_Lib;
with Xt;                     use Xt;
with Xt_Shell;               use Xt_Shell;
with Xt_StringDefs;          use Xt_StringDefs;

procedure

  use X_System_Utilities.Command_Line_Utilities;
  use Xt_Ancillary_Types;
  use Xt_Callbacks;
  use Xt_Composite_Management;
  use Xt_Event_Management;
  use Xt_Instance_Management;
  use Xt_Initializers;
  use Xt_Resource_Management;
 
begin

  App := Xt_Create_Application_Context;

  Xt_Open_Display( App, "", "line_graph", "Line_Graph",
                   X_Lib.Resource_Manager.Null_Xrm_Options, Argc, Argv, Dpy );

  Shell_W := Xt_App_Create_Shell( "line_graph", "Line_Graph",
                                  Application_Shell_Widget_Class, Dpy,
                                  args(0..1) );
  Xt_App_Main_Loop( App );

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hopefully, from this you can see the difference in the amount of separate
packages the GNU bindings are broken into.  You may view this as good for
obvious Ada visibility reasons, but I found it anoying.

I've had good luck with both.  I have not used SERC's MOTIF product, only
the free Xlib, Xt bindings.

Hope this helps.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Barton                         tim@trident.datasys.swri.edu
Southwest Research Institute (SwRI)       (210) 522-3540
San Antonio, Texas                  "Smooth seas do not make skillful sailors"