Kevin Smith wrote:
> 
> Jon Aseltine wrote:
> >For this, I would say an application framework and a limited set of core
> >applications that everyone uses (email, text editor, browser, file
> >manager, etc).
> 
> Ok. A collection of applets is something I can
> understand. When you say "application framework"
> the first thing I think of is MFC, which I doubt
> is the model you're thinking of. You've mentioned
> components, so I assume that's part of your
> thinking.

I don't know too much about MFC -- is it something like OpenStep? I was
thinking of classes for abstractions of widgets (toolbars, menus) and
also for common protocols (IMAP, FTP, HTTP) as well as glue to hold it
together (an Application class?).


> 
> It sounds like you're more interested in app
> development than desktop replacement, per-se.
> That is, you haven't really mentioned taking over
> the screen and drawing icons where appropriate.
> Am I misunderstanding?

Yes. I am interested in the entire desktop, which I consider to be more
than just a window manager and some icons, but including that stuff too.

> 
> What operating system(s) did you have in mind for
> this to run on? If you're thinking Win and Mac,
> then that takes us even more toward app
> development.

I was thinking of Linux, but that is probably too narrow. Maybe most
Unix OSs can be supported? Or at least those with X?

> 
> If all development were to be in Ruby, then
> components might not even be needed--well-written
> classes might be able to do everything. I assume
> components would be a requirement, to allow
> development of apps in other languages.

I must be misusing my buzzwords. A component could be a Ruby class.

Jon
-- 
_______________________________________________________________________
  Jonathan Aseltine     aseltine / cs.umass.edu     MAS, Umass, Amherst