[Paraview] New ParaView

[Dominik Szczerba]

Thanks a lot for your thoughts. Do you happen to know from experience if
PV=VTK+FLTK would be an issue on Macs?

-- Dominik

Sean Ziegeler, Contractor wrote:
> Well, I'm not involved in any ParaView GUI development, but I do have
> experience with both Qt and FLTK.  IMHO, on the technical size, Qt's
> feature set and maturity would probably scale well with a project of
> ParaView's size.  And normally, I'd be hesitant with a licence like
> Qt's, but TrollTech at least has had an amicable history with the KDE
> folks for a number of years, as far as I know.
> 
> Overall, I think both toolkits are reliable enough to be depended upon.
> 
> That said, I personally like FLTK for smaller projects with VTK and/or
> OpenGL.  It's lighter implementation makes turn-around time faster for
> me.  I've found the stability of the production 1.1.x releases good on
> both Windows and Linux.
> 
> -Sean
> 
> On Mon, 2006-06-19 at 10:29, Dominik Szczerba wrote:
> 
>>OK, actually, might not belong to the ML here but I am facing the same
>>choice (GUI for my VTK visualizations). Therefore I hoped for heavier
>>criticism to rethink my own findings on Qt and FLTK rather than start a
>>flame war. I am particularilly interested if any compatibility/stability
>>issues with fltk influenced your choice of Qt. That Tcl/Tk is "a bit
>>unconvenient" to compile on various systems I have known for quite a
>>while now.
>>regards - Dominik
>>
>>
>>Andy Cedilnik wrote:
>>
>>>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?
>>>>>>      
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>    
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  
>>>
>>>
>>>

-- 
Dominik Szczerba, Dr.
Computer Vision Lab CH-8092 Zurich
http://www.vision.ee.ethz.ch/~domi