Gnome interface status report

[Lyndon Drake]

On Mon, Jul 12, 1999 at 11:34:49AM +0200, Kurt Hornik wrote:
> Committed yet?  I don't seem to get these with cvs update ...
> 

Oops.  Done now.

> Re X11/gnome: Last week I suggested that eventually we might have
> something like
> 
> 	unix/...
> 	unix/X11	=> libRX11.so
> 	unix/gnome	=> libRgnome.so
> maybe also
> 	unix/kde
> ???
> 
> and at startup do
> 
> 	LoadSharedLib("libR$GUI.so")
> 
> My impression was that the comments we received were all positive.  So,
> maybe we should keep this in mind.
> 
> Even without the GUI DLL, the above organization would be a lot cleaner.
> How easy would it be to accomplish that?  It seems that we can have
> 
> 	*sock*
> 	dynload.c
> 	hpdlfcn.c
> 
> in common, and maybe we only need to take waitforActivity() out from
> system.c?
> 

I like the idea of organising the files this way.  The shared library thing
could be a bit tricky, but I guess it could be done.

devPS.c 
devPicTeX.c 
dynload.c 
edit.c 
Rsock.c 
sock.c 

are already used directly from the unix directory by the Gnome interface.
We could easily split up system.c into a couple of files.  This would give
us:

unix
|-system.c, devPS.c, ..., sock.c
|-X11
| |-system-X11.c, edit.c, devX11.c, ...
|-gnome
| |-system-gnome.c, edit.c, devGnome.c, ...

Doing this as a source split (rather than turning things into shared
libraries) would mean putting main into system-X11.c and system-gnome.c,
but would make maintaining the source for the stuff that's share between
both interfaces much simpler.

Lyndon
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
r-devel mailing list -- Read http://www.ci.tuwien.ac.at/~hornik/R/R-FAQ.html
Send "info", "help", or "[un]subscribe"
(in the "body", not the subject !)  To: r-devel-request@stat.math.ethz.ch
_._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._