World: r3wp

pekr: you mean like GLayout did?  ;-)

:-) I got the that too Gabriele.

not sure - for me it started when it started to be clear that you 
are going to do it in-house, behind the closed door, showing us the 
result only ;-)

Something I sometimes do for RT is collect and sift community input 
for them analyze. I donh't know if they always read it, but I know 
they do sometimes. If people have input they think is important, 
I will be happy to collect it and submit it to RT.

I would prefer that RT would work on the foundation, rather than 
something quick and sloppy that tries barely to cover everything 
like VID does. We'll help with the upper layers of GUI element design. 
That's not design by commitee, but simply compartmentalizing who 
does what. With R3, I had expected the goal to have as small and 
efficient a core as possible, with the rest being open source. Carry 
that philosophy through with the GUI as well, so RT can do a fast 
and efficient basis for a GUI and let actual artists and GUI designers 
work on the GUI.


This way, if some of us want a serious GUI system, we can build that 
and if we want something very fancy and artistic, we can build that 
too and both will not compete with eachother, but supplement eachother 
instead. I hate to see double work done in such a small community.

you know guys, in a sense I already have a 100% working dataflow 
view.  and it took me 2 hours to build the whole gadget architecture 
on it and about 30 minutes to write my first integer field... and 
its all AGG.  and its 100% bug free.

henrik, that is the plan, but the foundation has to provide a bit 
more than just "hey, you have gobs, you can make whatever you want 
with that".

I agree Henrik, with the exception that I want something like VID 
built in, something simple I know will always be there.

but its different... all it would need is a layout dialect (using 
GLayout resizing)

my problem with this situation is that you are judging us before 
we even started doing anything.

I'm using it in elixir, but AGG is a limiting factor right now... 
once it gets to pretty it starts slowing down.

so I really hope gobs will improve this :-)

Sounds very cool Max, is it posted somewhere, or wil it be?

cause all I'll need to do for R3 is replace my internal gob class 
(gel) with them and maybe how I detect the strokes and all.

about 2 weeks probably.

Gregg - I agree, I want some default foundation too. But there is 
one psychological factor to it. Everone naturally tries to use the 
standard. View will have web presence etc. It is what will be used 
by newcomers first. So, that is why I ask for new VID to be more 
feature complete in its roots already, to prevent novice questions 
as - well, how do I know which element is visually in focus? etc.

I am busy (repurating from the lost week going to devcon, am working 
on my house, cause its sunny and want to release revault by next 
monday)

once that is up, I will work on releasing liquidGL and then elixir.

elixir needs a week of polishing before we can start to really build 
tools in it.

petr, that's what we want too and i think we have expressed that. 
if we haven't expressed that enough, let me stress it again.

I hope I can get the liquid net working in time for the release, 
otherwise it will be its first update.

I also remember some aspect (worries) of Chris, who requested layout 
being more like in css world. Dunno what exactly was the request, 
but something like - once you do layout, VID dialect is not live 
anymore (live=tight to changes you make later?) Not sure what was 
his intention here ...

I think I understand, why Carl wants some default foundation. This 
is the same reason why installer was introduced. He wants rebol to 
be adopted by masses, and hence he wants some default VID.

Gabriele, I only think there is a matter of miscommunication. Some 
time ago I joined a private GUI design group in here, which was called 
the official one for R3. I can't remember who started it, but a lot 
of people, including Pekr, joined up. So I started working on concepts 
for integrating an animation system into VID. I think people are 
a little upset, because it felt like RT were going behind our backs 
and wanted to pull R3 GUI in your own very different direction and 
disregard the work we did.

Being a REBOLer from a lot of years being not a guru, especially 
in the GUI area and having suggested REBOL to other programmers I 
wish to share with you my pov that, maybe, can explain the situation. 
The lack of documentation and the initial easyness of VID is a deterrent 
for programmers to adopt REBOL. In the last week I asked Anton for 
help with some VID and styles and he wanted feedback from me. He 
did a few things (an analog clock style and some adjustments to his 
scroll-tables) but make up his and my mind about some design details 
is still not over as need, POVs and uses of the same style can be 
very differents with two people involved (with one being the programmer 
and the other a little user like me). Imagine an as small as you 
wish group and try to figure out the time it needs to decide design. 
Put this together with the pressure of not taking too much time to 
release R3 before July and I think it should be clear why Carl has 
to stop asking opinions (after 2 years) and put more time on coding

official one for R3 - can you point me to any statement from Carl 
on that account? Also, i'm not really pulling to do this myself. 
i would be more than happy to have someone else doing it. you can 
talk to Carl and ask him to let someone else do it.

Gabriele, come on, no need to search for official notes ;-) Or should 
we find some "community involvement" doc via google, which later 
disappeared from RT's site? :-)

I do remember Carl talked about small group of individuals, who would 
help with new VID, like it was with 1.3. The question is, what is 
small group :-)

so, ok, what is the community's decision on this topic. i will stick 
to it and tell Carl about it.

Well I repeated Gregg's and some of Pekr's words. I was too slow 
in typing

I would like to be part of the team.  Just like Anton, I've been 
fighting my way inside of VID for years.


I'll be blunt The only thing I'd keep is the dialect concept while 
add glayout ish row/column layout which even Carl admitted is much 
easier to handle and "see".

all the other internals, well, I'd implement completely differently... 
and I'm not talking Dataflow here.

I mean in making it as "open" and obvious as the face object is.

decision - difficult to say .... some form of more involvement, better 
organisation of efforst. Last two weeks I exchanged two emails with 
Carl. My opinion is, that we need to start working on several parallel 
fronts. DevBase, DocBase, new RT's site structure (both .com and 
.net). We don't know anything concrete about those. And those are 
importan - we need to start to think too, how to structure docs, 
if/how we allow them to be translated, etc.

it seems that the face is very well tought out, and with a simple 
guide you can grok most of its cincepts in an evening.

May I suggest to give a timeline to the decision and discuss and 
"fight" about it between the small group (choose your preferred discussion 
"place") and, as Gregg suggested, collect the resulting deliberations 
to be submitted to Gabriele and Carl?

VID dialect is the same.

VID internals are so obscure and limiting that in most parts, its 
easier to replace them than hook ourself in.

I would too, start with initial formal meeting with some agenda - 
including Carl if possible. One hour would not kill anyone imo.

GLayout has many things like scrollwheel support for all faces (without 
focus), but it was hellish workaround.

Things like Max is mentioning - top-down mechanism - setting goals 
- what do we expect from new VID ... yes, no, voting, reasons, or 
veto by Carl

Should VID has this, or that, etc., how to aproach layout, on-something 
handlers in upper level? etc.

I'd just like more hooking capabilities right in the api.   just 
like Amiga allowed many things to be extended without needing to 
replace them.

once done - 1 - 3 ppl implement.

It would be nice if RT communicated to us in here, we who are very 
interested in working as closely as possible with RT, but cannot 
do work directly on the core, on what it would be a very good idea 
for us to consider building.


Like: "RT thinks you should look at building a GUI system" or "RT 
would like you to build a test case suite for R3" or "RT would like 
you to work on making OpenGL work well with REBOL as a dialect like 
VID" or "RT would love to see you building protocols for this and 
that kind of communication" or "RT needs a very good multithreaded 
webserver, that can handle X users" and have those efforts officially 
endorsed by RT, similarly to how MUI eventually became the GUI of 
choice on the Amiga to build your applications on. Perhaps put out 
hard specs and see if anyone will pick it up.


Right now, many efforts feel like they are there, not because RT 
felt they were a good idea, but because some individuals thought 
they were good ideas. Most of us here speak highly of our own ideas, 
but without much dialog with RT. AltME feels like it's the only non-RT 
effort that is endorsed by RT and perhaps also Cheyenne. Such directions 
would also mean that perhaps a lot of people would flock to the same 
official project, rather than starting 2-3 separate projects.

being an ENTJ, I'll always want to start my own stuff though  ;-)

Maxim - that is OK. I think that the problem is, that they state 
being open, yet so far, they don't communicate.

for some reason, I always thought that once the R3 core was released, 
we would be allowed to measure it, come to grasp with IT.  then one 
or two updates later, we could better see how it might allow gui 
to be worked in.

IMO we are very few here already. What is the other closest group 
to ask for review in rebol community than here? There is RT ... then 
there is few ppl working closely with them - Ladislav, Cyphre, Gabriele, 
then few skilled here (I don't belong there) .... it is pity Carl 
can't find his way to top developers here.

I personally don't see the rush for view in R3.  frankly, no one 
in the community (or outside) will be wanting to fork their "serious" 
development on it, until a little bit of testing and all.