Re: [XaraXtreme-dev] Some Contributions

[JLM <jsado_sc5@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Regarding my color changes, I can see no difference between my build and
an official release build (1692) using the default theme. I looked at
all UI elements an any dialogs I could find. It was not my intent to
change any of the colors, just to use color names that are not
deprecated. I thought this would be useful going forward. If Ubuntu uses
a different theme other than Gtk+'s default, and you know the theme's
name I can download it and verify that it also looks the same.

I'll rework my 2.8 changes and test it.

Alex Bligh wrote:
> JLM,
> 
> --On 31 May 2007 19:36 -0400 JLM <jsado_sc5@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>>  void CamArtProvider::Draw(wxDC& dc, const wxRect & rect, ResourceID
>> Resource, CamArtFlags Flags, const wxString &text)  {
>> -    dc.SetBrush(wxSystemSettings::GetColour(wxSYS_COLOUR_3DFACE));
>> +    dc.SetBrush(wxSystemSettings::GetColour(wxSYS_COLOUR_BTNFACE));
> 
> Have you tested changes like the above on the default theme? If so,
> do they make a difference? If they do, I suspect there might be
> some "resistance" here; it would be really helpful if you could
> post a screenshot of before and after the fixes under your theme,
> so we can weigh the gains there against any loss elsewhere. I think
> it is worth addressing what are perceived now as "odd" themes as who
> is to say the next (say) Ubuntu theme won't be similarly "odd", but
> we need to ensure that current themes aren't broken too much.
> 
> Re the WX 2.8 stuff, it seems there are some classname changes (e.g.
> wxFrameManager to wxAuiManager, wxPaneInfo to wxAuiPaneInfo). Given
> the two "approved" compilation methods are against 2.6 (which doesn't
> have wxAUI in, and thus uses wxAUI from the wxXtra directory) and
> (per your changes) against 2.8, I think it would probably be better
> to apply a good dose of sed to wxXtra and simply change all instances
> of wxFrameManager to wxAuiManager and wxPaneInfo to wxAuiPaneInfo. This
> would eliminate the need to scatter the code with #ifdef's, although
> obviously the code would need to be changed (once) to use the new
> names. WDYT? Can you rework those bits?
> 
> Out of interest, how extensively have you tested 2.8? I got 2.7 working
> pretty reliably at some point so I think it should be OK. It's normally
> the stuff we forward ported (wxAUI, combos etc.) that have potential
> associated problems. Still, having it compile at all is better than
> nothing!
> 
> I understand Charles has received your signed CA. If you can rework
> the 2.8 stuff as per above (unless there is some huge flaw I
> haven't seen) I'll apply that at the w/e (I take it the patches
> work OK separately); I'll have a go seeing what visible changes the
> other stuff makes on Ubuntu too.
> 
> Alex
>