lyle at knology.net
Tue Jan 24 15:43:17 EST 2006
On Jan 24, 2006, at 2:01 PM, Uwe Hartl wrote:
> Yes, I think there are the inherited methods too. Some of them I find
> in the
> tree, others I don't. But the explaination that you only document the
> you consider to be part of the API, this explains the missing methods.
> Do I go correct in the assumption, that in new versions only the
> documented API is
> going to be compatible? This would forbid using the other methods and
> attributes. Therefore I get the feeling that I better switch to FXText
> the purpose I wanted to use FXTextField. FXText seems to deliver all I
> think of...
If I understand your question then the answer is yes, you should stick
to using only the documented APIs for FXRuby. There are some things
that you can still only do reliably when using the C++ library, such as
the example you ran into (sending an ID_INSERT_STRING message directly
to the widget).
> I just checked, you are the guy who creates FXRuby! Thanks for the
You're welcome. ;) Jeroen van der Zijp, the creator of FOX, has done
most of the hard work, but I'm glad to make his work available to the
Ruby community too.
> I am glad that you do it. I was trying to do the program I want in
> Java first but
> I had the feeling to fight against Java. I switched to ruby and I had
> feeling Ruby fights with me...
I like this, that you feel like Ruby is fighting with you and not
against you. I need to remember that for the future when I talk to
people about Java and Ruby.
> I have choosen FX because it seemed to be less resource hungry and and
> similar capable as the gtk stuff -- and it comes with
> the "One click Installer" on Windows. I would be helpless to install
> stuff on
> Windows. Nothing is as easy as an "emerge fxruby"...
> Again, thank you for creating FXRuby.
More information about the fxruby-users