From miguel@nuclecu.unam.mx
Received: (qmail 31514 invoked from network); 21 Feb 1998 02:09:22 -0000
Received: from athena.nuclecu.unam.mx (132.248.29.9)
by mail2.redhat.com with SMTP; 21 Feb 1998 02:09:22 -0000
Received: (from miguel@localhost)
by athena.nuclecu.unam.mx (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA17011;
Fri, 20 Feb 1998 20:08:23 -0600
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 20:08:23 -0600
Message-Id: <199802210208.UAA17011@athena.nuclecu.unam.mx>
From: Miguel de Icaza <miguel@nuclecu.unam.mx>
To: gtk-list@redhat.com, gnome@athena.nuclecu.unam.mx
Subject: Drag and drop protocol in Gtk?
Hello guys,
I took a quick look at the comparission of the Xdnd and Xde drag
and drop protocols (follow the link at http://www.gnome.org/devel/arch/dnd.html)
and I am not quite sure that the current Xde protocol provides any
real advantage over the Xdnd protocol.
From the gnome web page:
> The differences between Xde and Xdnd are:
>
> Better handling of copy/move/link operations (i.e. you can
> know what type you are copying/moving/linking)
>
> Fuller ICCCM compliance
>
> Integrates the "drop is finished" notification into the
> protocol instead of using the X selection protocol, reducing overhead
> and allowing the user greater flexibility for data transfer.
Point (1) is apparently addressed by the Xdnd protocol in a nice way
(http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~jafl/xdnd/dragging_files.html).
The reason for Point (2) is not very well documented, but as far as I
can see (from the discussion Owen and Elliot had), using the X
selection code for achieving this goal seems to be better, and thus it
should be more ICCCM compliant :-)
Point (3) about the overhead of the drag and drop protocol: I do not
really think that this extra "overhead" [1] is worth being
incompatible with Qt/KDE and the JX protocol.
I am worried about the DND state on Gtk as apparently nobody has
done any extensive testing on it and the 1.0 release date is
approaching. I would like to see Gtk 1.0 ship with the Xdnd protocol
instead of the currently incompatible Xde protocol.
miguel.
From owt1@cornell.edu
Received: (qmail 11128 invoked from network); 21 Feb 1998 03:05:09 -0000
Received: from cu-dialup-0804.cit.cornell.edu (HELO cu-dialup-1322.cit.cornell.edu)
(mail@132.236.155.50)
by mail2.redhat.com with SMTP; 21 Feb 1998 03:05:09 -0000
Received: from otaylor by cu-dialup-1322.cit.cornell.edu with local (Exim 1.82 #1)
id 0y657e-0005tn-00; Fri, 20 Feb 1998 21:57:02 -0500
To: Miguel de Icaza <miguel@nuclecu.unam.mx>
Cc: gtk-list@redhat.com, gnome@athena.nuclecu.unam.mx
Subject: Re: Drag and drop protocol in Gtk?
References: <199802210208.UAA17011@athena.nuclecu.unam.mx>
From: Owen Taylor <owt1@cornell.edu>
Date: 20 Feb 1998 21:57:02 -0500
In-Reply-To: Miguel de Icaza's message of Fri, 20 Feb 1998 20:08:23 -0600
Message-ID: <lz7m6pzmv5.fsf@cu-dialup-1322.cit.cornell.edu>
Lines: 126
X-Mailer: Gnus v5.5/Emacs 20.2
X-Emacs: Emacs 20.2, MULE 3.0 (MOMIJINOGA)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI MIME-Edit 0.98 - =?ISO-8859-4?Q?"D=F2?=
=?ISO-8859-4?Q?h=F2ji"?=)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Miguel de Icaza <miguel@nuclecu.unam.mx> writes:
> Hello guys,
>
> I took a quick look at the comparission of the Xdnd and Xde drag
> and drop protocols (follow the link at http://www.gnome.org/devel/arch/dnd.html)
> and I am not quite sure that the current Xde protocol provides any
> real advantage over the Xdnd protocol.
I spent a fair bit of time thinking about this this afternoon,
and I'm basically in agreement. However, from my perspective, Xdnd
has a couple of fairly big holes.
>
> From the gnome web page:
>
> > The differences between Xde and Xdnd are:
> >
> > Better handling of copy/move/link operations (i.e. you can
> > know what type you are copying/moving/linking)
> >
> > Fuller ICCCM compliance
> >
> > Integrates the "drop is finished" notification into the
> > protocol instead of using the X selection protocol, reducing overhead
> > and allowing the user greater flexibility for data transfer.
> Point (1) is apparently addressed by the Xdnd protocol in a nice way
> (http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~jafl/xdnd/dragging_files.html).
This is one of the most unsatisfactory points of Xdnd. (And the one
place Xde is a little bit better). Operation specification in Xdnd can
only be done if you don't need to transfer a file type as well. Plus
its a pretty clumsy way of doing things - the source and target need
to cooperate in choosing the operation, and the source needs to be
able to say which operation the user has chosen. (By pressing
modifiers keys, perhaps.) This doesn't work out very well with
the url/xxx scheme.
I think the Xdnd could support this pretty easily. Basically,
the source would give a list of possible operations and a
recommended operation to the target, and the target would select
which one it wanted in its XdndStatus message. The source then
would echo that back in the XdndDrop message. There is plenty
of unused room in the flags.
This is a compatible subset of the way Motif handles things and
is quite simple. I've proposed it to John Lindal, but he didn't
leap on it...
> The reason for Point (2) is not very well documented, but as far as I
> can see (from the discussion Owen and Elliot had), using the X
> selection code for achieving this goal seems to be better, and thus it
> should be more ICCCM compliant :-)
I don't think Xde is any more compliant. Neither Xdnd or Xde really
complies with the way the ICCCM suggests naming targets, but they
are identical in that. And the way they do it has some real advantages.
> Point (3) about the overhead of the drag and drop protocol: I do not
> really think that this extra "overhead" [1] is worth being
> incompatible with Qt/KDE and the JX protocol.
I don't think the overhead is worth worrying about at all. The
other part of point 3 is just wrong. Xde provides _no_ finished
confirmation, and that can easily lead to lost or corrupted data.
But this is the other place where Xdnd has problems. Version 1 of the
protocol solves the corrupted data problem by sending timestamp data
along with the messages. But there is no way of supplying a interface
to the application, that is simple, and safe as far as I can see:
With, for instance, the Motif DND protocol, you can simply block
anything from happening in the source application until the
drop finishes. If this isn't considered satisfactory, then it would
be easy to provide an _optional__ more complicated interface.
If things can continue happening during the drop, then the source
application has to keep a copy of the data around until the
target asks for it. But if there is not a "finished" confirmation,
you have to keep the data around forever...
When you don't have destructive operations (current Xdnd), then the
problem isn't that big. You can just store one set of data, and if a
second drag forces you to discard that data, you can just reject the
requests for it, and no harm is done. If the operation is destructive,
than the data has vanished, and you may have a very unhappy user.
So you are forced to keep a history of drags, without being able
to know when to delete them. (You probably can safely just keep
3-4) But this is a memory waste, and also has makes things very
hard on the application programmer. (The toolkit can't store
the data, because it isn't known until the target makes the request
which form of data it will request)
Even if you are just keeping a single history (sufficient for current
DND), it still isn't nice for the programmer.
So I think if those two simple changes were made (operation
negotation, and a XdndFinished) then Xdnd would really be the
way to go. Its not impossible that we could get a new version
of Xdnd that included these two.
If not, I'd be almost tempted just to bite the bullet and implement
Motif DND. It's a bear, and stuffed with things we don't need - but I
think those could be ignored, and it is, at least, not lacking
anything essential. But that is definitely not going to happen for Gtk
1.0.
> I am worried about the DND state on Gtk as apparently nobody has
> done any extensive testing on it and the 1.0 release date is
> approaching. I would like to see Gtk 1.0 ship with the Xdnd protocol
> instead of the currently incompatible Xde protocol.
I'm not sure what will be in 1.0 - I'm hoping to get any necessary API
changes done by then, but I'm not sure implementing Xdnd before next
Thursday is all that practical. I don't think it is horrible important
if the DND in 1.0 is final and rock-solid - simply because the GIMP
does not yet use DND, and that is the main point of the release.
But I'll do what I can.
Regards,
Owen
From dereks@animal.blarg.net
Received: (qmail 28811 invoked from network); 26 Mar 1998 03:13:54 -0000
Received: from animal.blarg.net (mail@206.124.128.1)
by mail2.redhat.com with SMTP; 26 Mar 1998 03:13:54 -0000
Received: from localhost (dereks@localhost)
by animal.blarg.net (8.8.5/8.8.4) with SMTP
id TAA23151 for <gnome-list@gnome.org>; Wed, 25 Mar 1998 19:13:53 -0800
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 19:13:53 -0800 (PST)
From: Derek Simkowiak <dereks@animal.blarg.net>
To: gnome-list@gnome.org
Subject: Drag 'N' Drop Protocol (?!)
In-Reply-To: <19980325182059.35395@julia.5z.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.95.980325190153.20100F-100000@animal.blarg.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
What is the DnD protocol being used for Gnome? Is it Xde or is it
Xdnd?
On the Gnome FAQ at:
http://www.mindspring.com/~tlewis/gnome/faq/FAQ-3.html
it states:
> What about Drag&Drop?
>
> GNOME will use the X Windows Drag-And-Drop Protocol. You can find more
> at http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~jafl/xdnd/.
...but then again, on the Gnome website at the URL:
http://www.gnome.org/devel/arch/dnd.shtml
it states:
> GNOME will be using the drag and drop support included in the Gtk+
> toolkit. Currently, Gtk uses the Xde protocol, developed specifically
> to fit the needs of a modern desktop environment. Future support is
> planned for other protocols such as the Motif protocol.
> Xde is related to, but different from (and better than --sopwith :)
> the Xdnd drag and drop specification. Please read this document for the
> details of this implementation.
...so which is it, and who do I email to fix the incorrect
documentation?
Also, I just want to say that I hope were using the Xdnd protocol.
It may be techinally inferior to Xde, but it's 1) non-proprietary, 2) an
open standard, and 3) the protocol in use by the KDE project. If Gnome
runs off in its own incompatible-with-everyone-else direction with
something as important as DnD, it's a very bad sign.
So what's the scoop? Some people over on the WindowMaker list
want to know...
Derek Simkowiak
dereks@blarg.net
From redline@pdq.net
Received: (qmail 18863 invoked from network); 26 Mar 1998 17:55:43 -0000
Received: from mail.direcpc.com (HELO postoffice2.direcpc.com) (198.77.116.30)
by mail2.redhat.com with SMTP; 26 Mar 1998 17:55:43 -0000
Received: from hh1119122 ([206.71.119.122]) by postoffice2.direcpc.com
(Post.Office MTA v3.1.2 release (PO203-101c)
ID# 0-45425U50000L50000S0) with SMTP id AAA26183
for <gnome-list@gnome.org>; Thu, 26 Mar 1998 12:55:29 -0500
X-Sender: X-Mailer:
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 11:51:24 -0600
To: gnome-list@gnome.org
From: Max Watson <redline@pdq.net>
Subject: Re: Drag 'N' Drop Protocol (?!)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.95.980325190153.20100F-100000@animal.blarg.net>
References: <19980325182059.35395@julia.5z.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
At 07:13 PM 3/25/98 -0800, Derek Simkowiak wrote:
> <Error in GNOME docs snipped>
> Also, I just want to say that I hope were using the Xdnd protocol.
>It may be techinally inferior to Xde, but it's 1) non-proprietary, 2) an
>open standard, and 3) the protocol in use by the KDE project. If Gnome
>runs off in its own incompatible-with-everyone-else direction with
>something as important as DnD, it's a very bad sign.
If it is technically inferior, I do not see why GNOME should use it. I will
agree there should be interoperability between GNOME and KDE, but why
should we cater to the lowest common denominator? How about petitioning the
KDE people to change their protocol? Or is it built into Qt (and thus
unchangeable by anyone but Troll Tech)?
M.Watson redline@pdq.net
From dereks@animal.blarg.net
Received: (qmail 6255 invoked from network); 26 Mar 1998 20:16:03 -0000
Received: from animal.blarg.net (mail@206.124.128.1)
by mail2.redhat.com with SMTP; 26 Mar 1998 20:16:03 -0000
Received: from localhost (dereks@localhost)
by animal.blarg.net (8.8.5/8.8.4) with SMTP
id MAA01155; Thu, 26 Mar 1998 12:15:30 -0800
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 12:15:29 -0800 (PST)
From: Derek Simkowiak <dereks@animal.blarg.net>
To: Max Watson <redline@pdq.net>
cc: gnome-list@gnome.org
Subject: Re: Drag 'N' Drop Protocol (?!)
In-Reply-To: <"xsgfD3.0.xc4.WQf6r"@mail2.redhat.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.95.980326120549.31284A-100000@animal.blarg.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
> should we cater to the lowest common denominator?
To a certain degree, actually, we should. Certainly not in
everything (or even most things), but since this is very important to the
inter-operability of GNOME and non-GNOME apps, I think we should use the
declared standard. Unfortunately, there are thousands of more programs
that are non-GNOME than there are GNOME apps--I'd like to use those under
the GNOME desktop.
> How about petitioning the KDE people to change their protocol? Or is it
> built into Qt (and thus unchangeable by anyone but Troll Tech)?
No, XDnD is not based on any particular widget set--it's
completely open (and open to suggestions). But just as it would be wrong
to expect Troll Tech to have complete control over the Unix DnD protocol,
it would also be wrong to put that responsibility (and degree of
control) on the developers of GTK+.
There are two elegant solutions to this problem: 1) Gnome apps
(and GTK+) should support both Xde *and* Xdnd, so that Gnome apps will
work well with non-Gnome apps, and 2) The Xdnd protocol should be updated
to include all the features of Xde.
Anyway, this whole discussion may be in vain: What is the declared
DnD protocol of the Gnome project?!
Derek Simkowiak
dereks@blarg.net
From sopwith@cuc.edu
Received: (qmail 11099 invoked from network); 26 Mar 1998 21:47:53 -0000
Received: from helix.cs.cuc.edu (HELO cuc.edu) (sopwith@207.222.40.128)
by mail2.redhat.com with SMTP; 26 Mar 1998 21:47:53 -0000
Received: from localhost (sopwith@localhost)
by cuc.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA01376;
Thu, 26 Mar 1998 16:46:23 -0500
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 16:46:23 -0500 (EST)
From: Elliot Lee <sopwith@cuc.edu>
X-Sender: sopwith@helix.cs.cuc.edu
Reply-To: Elliot Lee <sopwith@cuc.edu>
To: Derek Simkowiak <dereks@animal.blarg.net>
cc: gnome-list@gnome.org
Subject: Re: Drag 'N' Drop Protocol (?!)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.95.980326120549.31284A-100000@animal.blarg.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.95.980326163840.32164B-100000@helix.cs.cuc.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Thu, 26 Mar 1998, Derek Simkowiak wrote:
> Anyway, this whole discussion may be in vain: What is the declared
> DnD protocol of the Gnome project?!
I designed the protocol, and wrote the code. If you want anything else,
producing code for it would be the fastest way to make it happen ;-)
This is not to say that comments & suggestions aren't welcome, but that
right now I've got other priorities. After Gtk 1.0 comes out I'll probably
rewrite the whole thing...
-- Elliot http://www.redhat.com/
Chicken Little was right.
From miguel@nuclecu.unam.mx
Received: (qmail 9870 invoked from network); 27 Mar 1998 22:52:24 -0000
Received: from athena.nuclecu.unam.mx (132.248.29.9)
by mail2.redhat.com with SMTP; 27 Mar 1998 22:52:24 -0000
Received: (from miguel@localhost)
by athena.nuclecu.unam.mx (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA06369;
Fri, 27 Mar 1998 16:50:56 -0600
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 16:50:56 -0600
Message-Id: <199803272250.QAA06369@athena.nuclecu.unam.mx>
From: Miguel de Icaza <miguel@nuclecu.unam.mx>
To: dereks@animal.blarg.net
CC: gnome-list@gnome.org
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.3.95.980325190153.20100F-100000@animal.blarg.net>
(message from Derek Simkowiak on Wed, 25 Mar 1998 19:13:53 -0800
(PST))
Subject: Re: Drag 'N' Drop Protocol (?!)
X-Info: When in doubt, blame the network
> Also, I just want to say that I hope were using the Xdnd protocol.
> It may be techinally inferior to Xde, but it's 1) non-proprietary, 2) an
> open standard, and 3) the protocol in use by the KDE project.
We are using Xde.
1. I do not understand your definition of `proprietary'. If your
definition of proprietary is `you do not use what someone else
mandated', then, all of gnome is proprietary (including the DnD).
2. What defines an `Open standard'?
3. Gtk+ is very probably going to implement the OSF/1 DnD protocol,
and we will switch to that when it is made available. Wonder if
you consider this one also `proprietary'.
Miguel.
From miguel@nuclecu.unam.mx
Received: (qmail 7107 invoked from network); 27 Mar 1998 23:22:33 -0000
Received: from athena.nuclecu.unam.mx (132.248.29.9)
by mail2.redhat.com with SMTP; 27 Mar 1998 23:22:33 -0000
Received: (from miguel@localhost)
by athena.nuclecu.unam.mx (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA06777;
Fri, 27 Mar 1998 17:21:06 -0600
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 17:21:06 -0600
Message-Id: <199803272321.RAA06777@athena.nuclecu.unam.mx>
From: Miguel de Icaza <miguel@nuclecu.unam.mx>
To: dereks@animal.blarg.net
CC: redline@pdq.net, gnome-list@gnome.org
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.3.95.980326120549.31284A-100000@animal.blarg.net>
(message from Derek Simkowiak on Thu, 26 Mar 1998 12:15:29 -0800
(PST))
Subject: Re: Drag 'N' Drop Protocol (?!)
X-Windows: No hardware is safe.
> To a certain degree, actually, we should. Certainly not in
> everything (or even most things), but since this is very important to the
> inter-operability of GNOME and non-GNOME apps, I think we should use the
> declared standard.
Motif DND has been around for a longer time; It is better documented;
It is more complete and is used by CDE, which is nowadays available
pretty much everywere.
If we are going to change the DnD protocol, it will be to the Motif
DnD, not the Xdnd.
Miguel.
From dereks@animal.blarg.net
Received: (qmail 13305 invoked from network); 27 Mar 1998 23:54:01 -0000
Received: from animal.blarg.net (mail@206.124.128.1)
by mail2.redhat.com with SMTP; 27 Mar 1998 23:54:01 -0000
Received: from localhost (dereks@localhost)
by animal.blarg.net (8.8.5/8.8.4) with SMTP
id PAA26770; Fri, 27 Mar 1998 15:53:39 -0800
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 15:53:39 -0800 (PST)
From: Derek Simkowiak <dereks@animal.blarg.net>
To: Miguel de Icaza <miguel@nuclecu.unam.mx>
cc: gnome-list@gnome.org
Subject: Re: Drag 'N' Drop Protocol (?!)
In-Reply-To: <199803272250.QAA06369@athena.nuclecu.unam.mx>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.95.980327153041.24263A-100000@animal.blarg.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
> 1. I do not understand your definition of `proprietary'. If your
> definition of proprietary is `you do not use what someone else
> mandated', then, all of gnome is proprietary (including the DnD).
GTK+ is 'proprietary', that's true. But, a Gnome app will not
have to interface with another app's Widget set. It could, however, be
asked to accept something "dragged" onto it from a non-Gnome app. It
would be great if it could deal with that data.
Incidentally, it seems to me that CORBA, Display Ghostscript (i.e.
Postscript) and Scheme (read: Guile) is (what I would have called) an
"open standard".
> 2. What defines an `Open standard'?
I'm not sure what the technical or legal definition is, but what I
was trying to say was "a standard which was not developed in order to
benefit a particular environment or widget set". More to the point, I was
thinking of a DnD protocol that *anyone* could use in their program,
whether or not they used GTK+ to develop it.
My apologies at not being able to find a better term.
> 3. Gtk+ is very probably going to implement the OSF/1 DnD protocol,
> and we will switch to that when it is made available. Wonder if
> you consider this one also `proprietary'.
According to the above clarification, no, I would not, and I am
glad to hear we are using a protocol set by OSF/1.
Summary: I know that the GTK+ is "Open", I understand GNU, and I
know "open standard" and "proprietary" were not the best terms to use, but
I don't think Gnome should limit its Drag'n'Drop interactivity to only
apps which have been developed using GTK+.
Simply implementing XDnD would already give us D'n'D
inter-operability with the large range of KDE software that's out there.
I think we can all agree that it sucks that there are many
different DnD protocols for X, and none of them works with any of the
others. This, IMHO, is one of the reasons Unix (and more specifically,
Linux) has not swamped the mainstream desktop market. It's just
depressing that we're using Yet Another Incompatible Protocol.
I suppose the thing to do is wait for the OSF/1 DnD protocol and
hope everyone else also decides to switch to it.
Derek
From tromey@creche.cygnus.com
Received: (qmail 30192 invoked from network); 28 Mar 1998 00:07:18 -0000
Received: from creche.cygnus.com (192.203.188.26)
by mail2.redhat.com with SMTP; 28 Mar 1998 00:07:18 -0000
Received: (from tromey@localhost) by creche.cygnus.com (8.7.6/8.7.3)
id QAA26818; Fri, 27 Mar 1998 16:58:26 -0700
Sender: tromey@creche.cygnus.com
To: Miguel de Icaza <miguel@nuclecu.unam.mx>
Cc: dereks@animal.blarg.net, gnome-list@gnome.org
Subject: Re: Drag 'N' Drop Protocol (?!)
References: <199803272250.QAA06369@athena.nuclecu.unam.mx>
X-Zippy: Yow! I want my nose in lights!
X-Attribution: Tom
BCC:
Reply-To: tromey@cygnus.com
From: Tom Tromey <tromey@cygnus.com>
Date: 27 Mar 1998 16:58:24 -0700
In-Reply-To: Miguel de Icaza's message of Fri, 27 Mar 1998 16:50:56 -0600
Message-ID: <m11zvnr8in.fsf@creche.cygnus.com>
Lines: 41
X-Mailer: Red Gnus v0.34/Emacs 19.34
>> Also, I just want to say that I hope were using the Xdnd protocol.
>> It may be techinally inferior to Xde, but it's 1) non-proprietary,
>> 2) an open standard, and 3) the protocol in use by the KDE project.
Miguel> We are using Xde.
Miguel> 1. I do not understand your definition of `proprietary'. If
Miguel> your definition of proprietary is `you do not use what
Miguel> someone else mandated', then, all of gnome is proprietary
Miguel> (including the DnD).
Miguel> 2. What defines an `Open standard'?
Miguel> 3. Gtk+ is very probably going to implement the OSF/1 DnD
Miguel> protocol, and we will switch to that when it is made
Miguel> available. Wonder if you consider this one also
Miguel> `proprietary'.
I agree the proprietariness (in the sense in which I'm used to using
it -- words like this are vague) is not something we have to worry
about here. We (presumably) have the specs to all 3 DND protocols,
which is all we need.
But I think I understand what he is getting at. The real issue is
that DND is all about interoperability. If everybody else uses a
different DND protocol from Gtk/Gnome, then that is one more barrier
to mixing Gnome applications with applications from other sources.
I haven't read the various DND specs, so I can't comment on the
inferiority or superiority of the schemes. Would it be possible for
us to interoperate with all forms of DND? This would seem to be the
ideal course.
Derek> Anyway, this whole discussion may be in vain: What is the
Derek> declared DnD protocol of the Gnome project?!
I imagine Gnome will just follow Gtk.
Tom
From miguel@nuclecu.unam.mx
Received: (qmail 14374 invoked from network); 28 Mar 1998 00:20:59 -0000
Received: from athena.nuclecu.unam.mx (132.248.29.9)
by mail2.redhat.com with SMTP; 28 Mar 1998 00:20:59 -0000
Received: (from miguel@localhost)
by athena.nuclecu.unam.mx (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA07722;
Fri, 27 Mar 1998 18:19:30 -0600
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 18:19:30 -0600
Message-Id: <199803280019.SAA07722@athena.nuclecu.unam.mx>
From: Miguel de Icaza <miguel@nuclecu.unam.mx>
To: dereks@animal.blarg.net
CC: gnome-list@gnome.org
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.3.95.980327153041.24263A-100000@animal.blarg.net>
(message from Derek Simkowiak on Fri, 27 Mar 1998 15:53:39 -0800
(PST))
Subject: Re: Drag 'N' Drop Protocol (?!)
X-FileLength: are infinite where infinity is set to 255 characters
> Summary: I know that the GTK+ is "Open", I understand GNU, and I
> know "open standard" and "proprietary" were not the best terms to use, but
> I don't think Gnome should limit its Drag'n'Drop interactivity to only
> apps which have been developed using GTK+.
>
> Simply implementing XDnD would already give us D'n'D
> inter-operability with the large range of KDE software that's out there.
Ok, here is the story: Elliot started a group to have a unified DnD
protocol which is what we now call Xde. The group included the
authors of the two toolkits that use Xdnd. Elliot implemented the
protocol in Gtk as a reference implementation and the authors
disappeared for some time and came back with a protocol that did some
things better and some things apparently were not that much better.
Both Xde and Xdnd protocols have design problems (like there is now
way to tell the status of the drop operation).
Motif DND protocol, on the other hand, happens to be huge but it
addresses all of the disturbing problems of Xde and Xdnd. Apparently
Owen Taylor is interested in adding the Motif code support to Gtk, and
when this happens, we will support that protocol.
It should be also possible to support multiple protocols at the same
time, but any further discussion on this subject should wait for the
post Gtk 1.0 release, as the api is going to change after gtk 1.0 and
the api will be the foundation for any further integration.
best wishes,
Miguel.
From k.wetzel@welfen-netz.com
Received: (qmail 32400 invoked from network); 29 Mar 1998 18:59:23 -0000
Received: from rs-main.welfen-netz.de (HELO welfen-netz.com) (195.143.56.1)
by mail2.redhat.com with SMTP; 29 Mar 1998 18:59:23 -0000
Received: from kai [195.143.57.69] by welfen-netz.com [195.143.56.1]
with SMTP (MDaemon.v2.7.SP2.R) for <gnome-list@gnome.org>;
Sun, 29 Mar 1998 21:02:42 +0200
Message-ID: <351DB08F.66D08C31@welfen-netz.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 04:23:11 +0200
From: Kai Wetzel <k.wetzel@welfen-netz.com>
Organization: Free Software Union (http://www.fslu.org)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Miguel de Icaza <miguel@nuclecu.unam.mx>
CC: gnome-list@gnome.org
Subject: Re: Drag 'N' Drop Protocol (?!)
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
References: <199803280019.SAA07722@athena.nuclecu.unam.mx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: gnome-list@gnome.org
Miguel de Icaza wrote:
[...]
> Motif DND protocol, on the other hand, happens to be huge but it
> addresses all of the disturbing problems of Xde and Xdnd.
[...]
Before this thread I used to think that the Motif DnD
protocol was proprietary (unlike Xde or XDnD) and that
documentation of the source/target communication was not
available to people who do not own a copy of some sort
of Motif. (Alta Vista also failed to give me any useful
links when I tried)
Does anybody have a URL which points to the information
required to implement the Motif DnD protocol or could
anybody make available the relavent documents for download
(or send to me via e-mail,) please ?
Best regards,
kai
From miguel@nuclecu.unam.mx
Received: (qmail 21917 invoked from network); 29 Mar 1998 20:26:54 -0000
Received: from athena.nuclecu.unam.mx (132.248.29.9)
by mail2.redhat.com with SMTP; 29 Mar 1998 20:26:54 -0000
Received: (from miguel@localhost)
by athena.nuclecu.unam.mx (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA28556;
Sun, 29 Mar 1998 14:24:52 -0600
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 14:24:52 -0600
Message-Id: <199803292024.OAA28556@athena.nuclecu.unam.mx>
From: Miguel de Icaza <miguel@nuclecu.unam.mx>
To: k.wetzel@welfen-netz.com
CC: gnome-list@gnome.org
In-reply-to: <351DB08F.66D08C31@welfen-netz.com> (message from Kai Wetzel on
Sun, 29 Mar 1998 04:23:11 +0200)
Subject: Re: Drag 'N' Drop Protocol (?!)
X-Windows: The joke that kills.
> Does anybody have a URL which points to the information
> required to implement the Motif DnD protocol or could
> anybody make available the relavent documents for download
> (or send to me via e-mail,) please ?
The GUILE site has a copy of the Motif DnD specification, but
according to Owen Taylor, the best documentation for the Motif DnD
protocol is the documentation and implementation found in LessTif.
Miguel.