[Paraview] New ParaView

[Andy Cedilnik]

Hi Dominik,

I would really not like to start a flame war.

We do use Fltk for some projects, so we do have some experiences with it.

Overall my take is that Fltk does not provide nearly as much 
infrastructure as Qt does. An example is the even mechanism of Qt. On 
the other hand Fltk is much lighter and its license is more liberal. 
That said, Qt provides much more documentation and support.

It is a hard decision to make.

          Andy

Dominik Szczerba wrote:
> Could you please kindly shed some more light on fltk? I assume the look
> was not the only criticism?
> Thank you
> Dominik
>
> Andy Cedilnik wrote:
>   
>> Hello Arash,
>>
>> We spend some time evaluating various widget sets and so far the most
>> robust is Qt. Fltk is great, but it looks unusual. wxWidgets looks more
>> native, but there are stability issues on various platforms, such as Mac
>> OSX.
>>
>> As far as accessing Server Manager without GUI, it is actually possible
>> and not that hard right now. The API is not well documented externally,
>> but we do offer a ParaView developers course.
>>
>> Hopefully that helps.
>>
>>       Andy
>>
>> Arash Jahangir wrote:
>>
>>     
>>> As I understand it, the next version of ParaView will be Qt based. 
>>> Personally I find the Qt license wanting and I wish Kitware had chosen
>>> wxWidgets or FLTK, but it is probably too late to ask for this...so I
>>> cut to the chase:
>>>
>>> Will version 3 of ParaView provide clear separation between UI and the
>>> functional code so that it is a relatively easy task to write an
>>> alternate GUI for ParaView?  If so, how can I find documentation on
>>> linking another GUI to the ParaView engine?
>>>       
>>
>>     
>
>   


-- 
Andy Cedilnik
Kitware Inc.