Re: What is differance between thick and thin binding?

["John Duncan" <jddst19+@pitt.edu>]

> My impression of CLAW was that it was substantially more than a
"binding" - that
> it provided its own environment which rides on top of the Win32api, but
does not
> attempt to exactly duplicate it.

Sure, I was just using the vendor's own words, from the website. I believe
they say "CLAW is a THICK binding to win32"

In any similar way, one could view MFC as a thick binding to Win32, because
it retains win32-style everythings except for its document/view model which
has no representation in the SDK. MFC provides an easier-to-handle message
pump as well. So it is a good level above the SDK, and requires different
programming, but not a significantly different mentality.

On the other hand, I wouldn't view Trestle (M3) as a binding to a windowing
system, but I'd rather see it as an abstraction. The binding takes place far
below and is then abstracted to something more generic across windowing
systems. Trestle's predecessor was actually designed for the Firefly
workstation. So it doesn't look too much like X when it comes down to it.

I don't know where a system like QT would come in. It's a little weird.

-John