XFCE Foundation Classes alive ??

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
12 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

XFCE Foundation Classes alive ??

Krister Alm
Hi,
I have spent some time trying to learn XFC and I really like it so far.
Now I have upgraded to XUbuntu 10.10 and can't find any of the
libraries in the Synaptic any more.
Is this a dead project ??

I was planing on creating a KDevelop alike program but using XFC
instead of relying on KDE and Qt since I really would like to have
that slim system.

Are there any progress at all or is it ok if I look into it to see if I can
contribute to it?
Any information would be helpful.

I don't have so much free time but would like to use it to help out
as much as I can. I'm a C++ freak and don't really like the C syntax.

However I did some tests and created cmake scripts to aid in the
program building since I right now feel I'm stuck with KDevelop and
that program uses CMake.

 From the site I can see the source package xfc-4.3.2.tar.gz, is this
the last available or is there anything newer ?

I tried the debian .deb packages but failed to install libxfcui since it
seems to have dependencies upon itself and thus cant be installed.

Looking forward to hear anything from anyone of you.
/Krister
_______________________________________________
Xfc-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://foo-projects.org/mailman/listinfo/xfc-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: XFCE Foundation Classes alive ??

Kent Asplund
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 21:12:56 +0200
Krister Alm <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi,
> I have spent some time trying to learn XFC and I really like it so far.
> Now I have upgraded to XUbuntu 10.10 and can't find any of the
> libraries in the Synaptic any more.
> Is this a dead project ??
I have been waiting on this mailinglist for activites for months, I had
actually forgotten that I was on it. I would suspect that nothing
happens.

>
> I was planing on creating a KDevelop alike program but using XFC
> instead of relying on KDE and Qt since I really would like to have
> that slim system.
Yes, reinventing the wheel is fun but maybe you should check if you can
help with Anjuta instead? Anjuta is a nice IDE that is rather
lightweight. I have not used it for a while since I prefer Eclipse,
which is NOT lightweight but is nice to work with, but then it was
very capable and fast starting (parts of a second on my machine).

Still that does not help with writing C++ for xfce as anjuta only
supports gtkmm (which does not feel lightweight as it has many
dependencies that always are included) but it should work as well as
KDevelop. I have also been interested in an alternative as I feel that
there should be something better than gtkmm. I have been tempted to
start writing my own general wrapper around plain gtk to cover my needs
but it does feel like overkill and suboptimizing.

>
> Are there any progress at all or is it ok if I look into it to see if I can
> contribute to it?
> Any information would be helpful.
>
> I don't have so much free time but would like to use it to help out
> as much as I can. I'm a C++ freak and don't really like the C syntax.

I hate to break it to you but writing a wrapper on gtk is a lot about
writing C.

>
> However I did some tests and created cmake scripts to aid in the
> program building since I right now feel I'm stuck with KDevelop and
> that program uses CMake.
As I said before. You can try Anjuta or Eclipse or a combination.
Anjuta is great for setting up an autotools project but the project
management is not so flexible (or maybe I just have not understodd it
100%). Eclipse+CDT+linuxtool/autotools is a great environment if you
have the grunt in your development machine. You need more knowledge
about autotools if using Eclipse but if you combine with Anjuta you
will manage.


>
>  From the site I can see the source package xfc-4.3.2.tar.gz, is this
> the last available or is there anything newer ?
>
> I tried the debian .deb packages but failed to install libxfcui since it
> seems to have dependencies upon itself and thus cant be installed.
>
> Looking forward to hear anything from anyone of you.

Me too...
/Kent


--
It said uses Windows 98 or better so I installed GNU/Linux

_______________________________________________
Xfc-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://foo-projects.org/mailman/listinfo/xfc-dev

attachment0 (197 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: XFCE Foundation Classes alive ??

Edwin F. Lopez A.
Hello there.

I'm also following this mail list longer than I though, and this is the first email I got in years.
I like the idea of the XFC framework, however It's not easy to find docs about and gtkmm is overkill (personal view only).

I've changed development environments now, however, and after learning a bit about eclipse RCP or Netbeans platform,  I felt like that's the way to go. I tried to research something similar for C/C++ and It was good news when I knew about the Kdevelop platform (kdevplatform), however I haven't had the time to play with it yet.


I hope this helps.

=======================
Edwin F. López A.
=======================

_______________________________________________
Xfc-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://foo-projects.org/mailman/listinfo/xfc-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: XFCE Foundation Classes alive ??

Kent Asplund
On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 09:07:35 -0500
"Edwin F. Lopez A." <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I've changed development environments now, however, and after learning a bit
> about eclipse RCP or Netbeans platform,  I felt like that's the way to go. I
> tried to research something similar for C/C++
I am using Eclipse CDT for C/C++ and it rocks! Netbeans are suposed to
be "the best" environment for C++ development but that is of course a
personal opinion. Personally I never got far with Netbeans as I
disliked the rigid look that did not integrate with my environment
(fonts and colours) and to manually set it up nicely was not easy.
Having Eclipse working and doing such a great job combined with nobody
"in the neighbourhood" using netbeans made me abandon the efforts.

/Kent

--
For my birthday I got a humidifier and a de-humidifier...  I put them in
the same room and let them fight it out.
                -- Steven Wright

_______________________________________________
Xfc-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://foo-projects.org/mailman/listinfo/xfc-dev

attachment0 (197 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: XFCE Foundation Classes alive ??

Edwin F. Lopez A.
Hi Kent.

Changing the look and feel in netbeans is really easy. You may do it in two different ways:
by command line, e.g.: neatbeans --laf GTK
editing the "netbeans.conf" configuration file (see more here): 

Regards.
--
=======================
Edwin F. López A.
=======================

_______________________________________________
Xfc-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://foo-projects.org/mailman/listinfo/xfc-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: XFCE Foundation Classes alive ??

Kent Asplund
On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 09:29:39 -0500
"Edwin F. Lopez A." <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Kent.
>
> Changing the look and feel in netbeans is really easy. You may do it in two
> different ways:
> by command line, e.g.: neatbeans --laf GTK
> editing the "netbeans.conf" configuration file (see more here):
> http://blogs.sun.com/netbeansphp/entry/how_to_change_look_and
>
> Regards.
> --
> =======================
> Edwin F. López A.
> =======================
Thank you. Then I might give it a second try. I have a vague memory of
changing look and feel and getting something that was similar to GTK
but with wrong font size. Now it does seem to work satisfactory
however.

Did I misunderstand you or is it that you have not tried to use
Eclipse and/or Netbeans as an C++ IDE? If you have then what was
missing for you?

Regards
/Kent

--
I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying
to please everybody.

_______________________________________________
Xfc-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://foo-projects.org/mailman/listinfo/xfc-dev

attachment0 (197 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: XFCE Foundation Classes alive ??

Edwin F. Lopez A.
Hi Kent.

> Did I misunderstand you or is it that you have not tried to use Eclipse and/or Netbeans as an C++ IDE? If you have then what was missing for you?
It was ages ago when I switched/moved from C/C++ to Java/.NET/PHP. At the time I was interested in finding a good light-weight candidate framework to create applications in linux using gtk AND C++, I found gtkmm but It didn't fit the "light-weight" I was looking for. Then I found XFC, but I got hooked to Kdevelop and QT (not lightweight either and at the time it was not gpl for commercial)... however my job changes stopped me from keeping working on C++, so I didn't really used XFC. And then, the support for C++ in Netbeans and Eclipse was not even available (at least not that I remember). So I never tried it.
Later on, when I started learning rich client applications I found that both Netbeans and Eclipse had a nice framework for doing it, and then I completely forgot about c++. Those are my adventures.
:-D
Regards.
-- 
=======================
Edwin F. López A.
=======================

_______________________________________________
Xfc-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://foo-projects.org/mailman/listinfo/xfc-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: XFCE Foundation Classes alive ??

Bo Lorentsen
In reply to this post by Krister Alm
On 10/21/2010 09:12 PM, Krister Alm wrote:
> I have spent some time trying to learn XFC and I really like it so far.
I like to hear that :-) I maintain the code base at the moment, but at a
very slow pace.
> Now I have upgraded to XUbuntu 10.10 and can't find any of the
> libraries in the Synaptic any more.
> Is this a dead project ??
Not really, but not many uses it (that is me and my self :-)) ...
> I was planing on creating a KDevelop alike program but using XFC
> instead of relying on KDE and Qt since I really would like to have
> that slim system.
That sounds exciting, like the geany project ?
> Are there any progress at all or is it ok if I look into it to see if
> I can
> contribute to it?
Yes a bit, but only slow progress ...
> Any information would be helpful.
My main development have been Xfce related (xconf), gtkbuilder, cairo
and printing.
> I don't have so much free time but would like to use it to help out
> as much as I can. I'm a C++ freak and don't really like the C syntax.
This is my position too, but if we are more than one, this could be a
really nice project.
> However I did some tests and created cmake scripts to aid in the
> program building since I right now feel I'm stuck with KDevelop and
> that program uses CMake.
CMake is a really nice build tool, I am dreaming of converting XFC built
system to CMake too.
> From the site I can see the source package xfc-4.3.2.tar.gz, is this
> the last available or is there anything newer ?
Nope, the latest code are to be found in git.xfce.org ...
> I tried the debian .deb packages but failed to install libxfcui since it
> seems to have dependencies upon itself and thus cant be installed.
Yes, I have had some problems building XFC with the new xfce code,
primary because I did not have time an knowledge to setup a prober
build. But I really like to see this work in the future, and more users
are motivating :-)

I have both an debian and ubuntu package, but I never had it working in
pkg-xfce, only locally.

I hope this is a start of some new life in the project.

/BL
_______________________________________________
Xfc-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://foo-projects.org/mailman/listinfo/xfc-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: XFCE Foundation Classes alive ??

Bo Lorentsen
In reply to this post by Kent Asplund
On 10/22/2010 11:45 AM, Kent Asplund wrote:

>> Hi,
>> I have spent some time trying to learn XFC and I really like it so far.
>> Now I have upgraded to XUbuntu 10.10 and can't find any of the
>> libraries in the Synaptic any more.
>> Is this a dead project ??
>>      
> I have been waiting on this mailinglist for activites for months, I had
> actually forgotten that I was on it. I would suspect that nothing
> happens.
>    
Hmm, if only I knew :-)

XFC is not dead, but more in some kind of hyper sleep. I have been using
it for some projects, and I maintain the current code bare in my spare
time, and some things may be missing but I am don't miss anything yet.

Please let me know if anything is needed or if you have anything to
contribute, and maybe we can wake up XFC of its current sleep, I really
like to see some life in this fine framework.

/BL
_______________________________________________
Xfc-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://foo-projects.org/mailman/listinfo/xfc-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: XFCE Foundation Classes alive ??

Kent Asplund
I should have sent a mail I guess but I was only interested in seeing
if there was any active development.

I am much for lightweight and do not like that we programmers are using
up the advances in computer technology in a more engineers improving it.
On the other hand I am very much for OOP and making things robust and
easy to maintain. These two seems to be slightly in conflict.

On my spare time I am making a program for keeping track of time spent
on projects/tasks: TimeIT (https://launchpad.net/timeit). This program
is made primarily to be easy to use and do things automatically.

TimeIT is made with gtkmm and I found a few things I did not like.

1 gtkmm seems to be monolithic, you always get everything. (My program
  needed 26Mb running, not only the fault of gtkmm of course)
2 gtkmm is using sigc++
3 gtkmm did not fell 100% reliable. (Destruction sometimes happened in
wrong order when using gtkmm smart pointers).

#3 Is something that you can live with. It is much better than Windows Forms anyway.
#2 sigc++ is great and safe implementation the of observer pattern but it tends to draw the attention away from designing interfaces and the relation between the objects.
#1 Memory usage: Here is something that might be done something about.

So, noticing that Xfc is still having some life maybe I should try it
and see what end result it would be.
It would at least be nice to make some benchmarks comparing Xfc and
gtkmm memory usage. It would be something nice for you to have on the
homepage anyway. Is there some other reasons to choose Xfc over gtkmm?
I think you need a section on your homepage describing why choosing
"your" framework instead of others.

End of rambling
/Kent






On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 22:01:20 +0200
Bo Lorentsen <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 10/22/2010 11:45 AM, Kent Asplund wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >> I have spent some time trying to learn XFC and I really like it so far.
> >> Now I have upgraded to XUbuntu 10.10 and can't find any of the
> >> libraries in the Synaptic any more.
> >> Is this a dead project ??
> >>      
> > I have been waiting on this mailinglist for activites for months, I had
> > actually forgotten that I was on it. I would suspect that nothing
> > happens.
> >    
> Hmm, if only I knew :-)
>
> XFC is not dead, but more in some kind of hyper sleep. I have been using
> it for some projects, and I maintain the current code bare in my spare
> time, and some things may be missing but I am don't miss anything yet.
>
> Please let me know if anything is needed or if you have anything to
> contribute, and maybe we can wake up XFC of its current sleep, I really
> like to see some life in this fine framework.
>
> /BL
> _______________________________________________
> Xfc-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://foo-projects.org/mailman/listinfo/xfc-dev

--
I never made a mistake in my life.  I thought I did once, but I was
wrong.
                -- Lucy Van Pelt

_______________________________________________
Xfc-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://foo-projects.org/mailman/listinfo/xfc-dev

attachment0 (197 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: XFCE Foundation Classes alive ??

Bo Lorentsen
On 10/23/2010 09:38 AM, Kent Asplund wrote:
> I should have sent a mail I guess but I was only interested in seeing
> if there was any active development.
>    
That would have helped a lot :-) I have been trying to announce a few
thing in the list, but got no response, and I then just dropped it, and
kept on making my own changes, for what I needed.
> I am much for lightweight and do not like that we programmers are using
> up the advances in computer technology in a more engineers improving it.
> On the other hand I am very much for OOP and making things robust and
> easy to maintain. These two seems to be slightly in conflict.
>    
Not necessarily, C++ may be bloated but not by nature, but one have to
be careful about how one uses things like templates and large frameworks
(due the the implicit cost), with f.ex. several hundred virtual
functions doing unneeded stuff :-)

I think that Google have the same ambition, when they started out
investing time in a language like go, where we again have a compiled
language (imperative, build in structures and functional), with the
possibility of a small footprint, an no VM (and the crowd goes mad ....
) :-)

And lastly, I don't believe in on language to rule them all :-) I like
C++ for system programming (even large GUI), python for larger scripts,
shell for system automation, javascript for my web client and even Java
for my android. All have there rightful place, and are good at solving
problems in there relevant domain.
> On my spare time I am making a program for keeping track of time spent
> on projects/tasks: TimeIT (https://launchpad.net/timeit). This program
> is made primarily to be easy to use and do things automatically.
>
> TimeIT is made with gtkmm and I found a few things I did not like.
>
> 1 gtkmm seems to be monolithic, you always get everything. (My program
>    needed 26Mb running, not only the fault of gtkmm of course)
>    
Is this real memory, or are large parts of the library memory mapped
when it is running ? I really like to know what is taking up all that
memory, it sound pretty substantial.
> 2 gtkmm is using sigc++
>    
Sorry, so do we ... no need to reinvent the wheel, and as C++ is not
functional with closures and all, this is the way to do it.
> 3 gtkmm did not fell 100% reliable. (Destruction sometimes happened in
> wrong order when using gtkmm smart pointers).
>    
Ok, XFC tries to use GTK+ to handle references and does not enforce a
new ref-count template thingy, and this makes it much more simple and
GTK+ like.

We also tryes not to enforce a large amount of virtual event functions,
in case you may need these one day :-)

But the price is that you need to know how to allocate and work with XFC
(Gtk) objects, and you need to know what to do when making new widgets,
as they need some more attention in order to gets events pumping.
> #3 Is something that you can live with. It is much better than Windows Forms anyway.
> #2 sigc++ is great and safe implementation the of observer pattern but it tends to draw the attention away from designing interfaces and the relation between the objects.
> #1 Memory usage: Here is something that might be done something about.
>    
That was my hope too, but XFC was designed to gain this, but I have
newer made any measuring (sorry) :-)
> So, noticing that Xfc is still having some life maybe I should try it
> and see what end result it would be.
>    
That sound very exiting, please let me know if there is anything I can
do to help. I am not working on any GTK related stuff at the moment, but
that could change (f.ex. : I really like to be able to write Xfce panel
applets in XFC).
> It would at least be nice to make some benchmarks comparing Xfc and
> gtkmm memory usage. It would be something nice for you to have on the
> homepage anyway.
I do agree, but my focus have been somewhat different ...
> Is there some other reasons to choose Xfc over gtkmm?
>    
The ambition was low overhead in both memory and execution, need we more :-)

If you like to work close at the GTK+ lib, but using C++, this is as
close as it gets.
> I think you need a section on your homepage describing why choosing
> "your" framework instead of others.
>    
Well, sorry ... I'm am primary a developer, and marketing have newer
been my strong side :)

/BL
_______________________________________________
Xfc-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://foo-projects.org/mailman/listinfo/xfc-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: XFCE Foundation Classes alive ??

Moses O McKnight
In reply to this post by Kent Asplund
I have started using FLTK 1.3 for some stuff and find it to be quite
useful.  Very lightweight and fast, and actively developed.  Much
lighter weight than GTK+, and cross-platform too.

Moses

On Sat, 2010-10-23 at 09:38 +0200, Kent Asplund wrote:

> I should have sent a mail I guess but I was only interested in seeing
> if there was any active development.
>
> I am much for lightweight and do not like that we programmers are using
> up the advances in computer technology in a more engineers improving it.
> On the other hand I am very much for OOP and making things robust and
> easy to maintain. These two seems to be slightly in conflict.
>
> On my spare time I am making a program for keeping track of time spent
> on projects/tasks: TimeIT (https://launchpad.net/timeit). This program
> is made primarily to be easy to use and do things automatically.
>
> TimeIT is made with gtkmm and I found a few things I did not like.
>
> 1 gtkmm seems to be monolithic, you always get everything. (My program
>   needed 26Mb running, not only the fault of gtkmm of course)
> 2 gtkmm is using sigc++
> 3 gtkmm did not fell 100% reliable. (Destruction sometimes happened in
> wrong order when using gtkmm smart pointers).
>
> #3 Is something that you can live with. It is much better than Windows Forms anyway.
> #2 sigc++ is great and safe implementation the of observer pattern but it tends to draw the attention away from designing interfaces and the relation between the objects.
> #1 Memory usage: Here is something that might be done something about.
>
> So, noticing that Xfc is still having some life maybe I should try it
> and see what end result it would be.
> It would at least be nice to make some benchmarks comparing Xfc and
> gtkmm memory usage. It would be something nice for you to have on the
> homepage anyway. Is there some other reasons to choose Xfc over gtkmm?
> I think you need a section on your homepage describing why choosing
> "your" framework instead of others.
>
> End of rambling
> /Kent
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 22:01:20 +0200
> Bo Lorentsen <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > On 10/22/2010 11:45 AM, Kent Asplund wrote:
> > >> Hi,
> > >> I have spent some time trying to learn XFC and I really like it so far.
> > >> Now I have upgraded to XUbuntu 10.10 and can't find any of the
> > >> libraries in the Synaptic any more.
> > >> Is this a dead project ??
> > >>      
> > > I have been waiting on this mailinglist for activites for months, I had
> > > actually forgotten that I was on it. I would suspect that nothing
> > > happens.
> > >    
> > Hmm, if only I knew :-)
> >
> > XFC is not dead, but more in some kind of hyper sleep. I have been using
> > it for some projects, and I maintain the current code bare in my spare
> > time, and some things may be missing but I am don't miss anything yet.
> >
> > Please let me know if anything is needed or if you have anything to
> > contribute, and maybe we can wake up XFC of its current sleep, I really
> > like to see some life in this fine framework.
> >
> > /BL
> > _______________________________________________
> > Xfc-dev mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > http://foo-projects.org/mailman/listinfo/xfc-dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xfc-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://foo-projects.org/mailman/listinfo/xfc-dev

_______________________________________________
Xfc-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://foo-projects.org/mailman/listinfo/xfc-dev
Loading...