<div dir="ltr"><div>You're right. Damn, you're always right :)<br><br></div>So, just to know where we are right now... What have been tested/done regarding the GUIs toolkits so far? I think we should at least have this set and go on from there...<br>
</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 5:31 PM, Hans-Christoph Steiner <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:hans@at.or.at" target="_blank">hans@at.or.at</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br>
I think this is the general idea of what everyone wants to support. But the<br>
way is actually takes shape is going to depend on whoever actually does the<br>
work. A great example of this is the PDDP (Pure Data Documentation Project).<br>
We had lots of design meetings and then no one implemented the ideas. Then<br>
Jonathan picked up from that what was interesting to him and made the whole<br>
meta help system, the search plugin, etc.<br>
<br>
The lesson there for me is that big design discussions only work if the people<br>
involved them are willing to do the work to implement them. Instead, I think<br>
for a more decentralized community like this one, we only should nail down the<br>
key parts that everyone must use, then leave other decisions to those who are<br>
implementing those parts.<br>
<br>
So that means I'm happy to help people write there own GUI, and I'll<br>
definitely be involved in the work of making it possible with Pd.<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
.hc<br>
</font></span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
On 01/21/2013 01:05 PM, Leandro da Mota Damasceno wrote:<br>
> That sounded like a Lego approach. :)<br>
><br>
> So the way I see it the GUI development should be in the most seemless way<br>
> for the user, right?<br>
><br>
> And we also have the problem between people who prefer a simple, leaner GUI<br>
> approach (the classic PD, for instance) against people who prefer a more<br>
> sofisticated, and sexy GUI. And I believe both groups would also like some<br>
> more knobs and stuff...<br>
><br>
> so basically, we should at least have two options of gui: simple (classic)<br>
> or sophisticated (sexy). But it would be cool to make it open enough to<br>
> anyone develop their own or come up with new and customized ones. that<br>
> would make PD way cooler than Max/MSP or anything else. So for that to work<br>
> (and now I must admit I really don't know the architecture behind this part<br>
> of PD, so maybe it is already this way), the comunication between the GUI<br>
> and the rest of PD should be kept simple, fast and modulated, working with<br>
> the leanest possible API. I also think this is a good approach considering<br>
> that most of these toolkits will stop getting support way before PD ceases<br>
> to exist. I have also thought about the possibility of skins, but then<br>
> loading a bunch of bitmaps would not help in terms of performance...<br>
><br>
><br>
> At the same time we pick a toolkit and focus on that one first. So we<br>
> should think of at least two teems, right? One at the GUI end and the other<br>
> at the core PD end...<br>
><br>
> What do you guys think?<br>
><br>
><br>
> On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 2:02 PM, Hans-Christoph Steiner <<a href="mailto:hans@at.or.at">hans@at.or.at</a>>wrote:<br>
><br>
>> On 01/21/2013 12:54 AM, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:<br>
>>> ----- Original Message -----<br>
>>><br>
>>>> From: Billy Stiltner <<a href="mailto:billy.stiltner@gmail.com">billy.stiltner@gmail.com</a>><br>
>>>> To: IOhannes zmölnig <<a href="mailto:zmoelnig@iem.at">zmoelnig@iem.at</a>><br>
>>>> Cc: <a href="mailto:pd-list@iem.at">pd-list@iem.at</a><br>
>>>> Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2013 10:04 PM<br>
>>>> Subject: Re: [PD] GUI toolkits and custom GUIs WAS: Integra Live 1.5<br>
>> released<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> haha , last month i tried to install juce to see about making an<br>
>>>> alternate graphics front end to my patches. there was some weirdness<br>
>>>> in the way you compile it then run the introjucer or somethin to<br>
>>>> update it then after the update something didn't quite work right.<br>
>>>> then there are all the old projects that use the old steinberg vst sdk<br>
>>>> which you cant get from steinberg anymore so all that is just awful. i<br>
>>>> think that there should be a really nice updated version of juce<br>
>>>> either available now or in the near future. its a tossup between<br>
>>>> fltk, qt , opengl ,juce, and processing. i just want to be able to<br>
>>>> add my waveform data filenames to the presets with a fileopen dialog<br>
>>>> without using an external, string parsing like .scl files that have<br>
>>>> 100.00 or 3/2, and polyphonic patchcords would be nice.<br>
>>><br>
>>> What about the -guicmd "cmd..." flag? Could one write a pd-gui.html<br>
>>> that lives at localhost:1234, and have it talk to pd at its port on<br>
>> localhost?<br>
>>><br>
>>> Then you could just write the interface with html5 canvas, svg,<br>
>>> javascript, or whatever.<br>
>>><br>
>>> -Jonathan<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> That sounds feasible to me.<br>
>><br>
>> .hc<br>
>><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> <a href="mailto:Pd-list@iem.at">Pd-list@iem.at</a> mailing list<br>
>> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -><br>
>> <a href="http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list" target="_blank">http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list</a><br>
>><br>
><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>