hi fxruby users! i decided to maybe put some efforts into a new release of foxguib. as the creator and maintainer of foxguib (who sadly never got much feedback) i am very interested if it is worth the effort. often i heard the opinion: "well, foxguib is nice, but i prefer coding my interfaces by hand." are you folks interested in a new release of foxguib? what would you like most to be enforced? * even more stability / usability * extend widget support * cool new features (tell me which) * documentation * ... what so ever please tell me your opinion! yours, -- henon
> hi fxruby users! > > i decided to maybe put some efforts into a new release of foxguib. as > the creator and maintainer of foxguib (who sadly never got much > feedback) i am very interested if it is worth the effort. often i > heard the opinion: "well, foxguib is nice, but i prefer coding my > interfaces by hand."Personally, I find GUI coding the most boring coding there is, so I really appreciate something like foxguib. I discovered it 2 days ago, and rapidly try it. I don''t have much experience of it yet, but what I would like on a next release of foxguib would be a) More documentation b) Maybe some way to add messages to the components? When I am more familiar with the program, I''ll see to answer directly in the project''s site.
thanks for the comment!! it gives me motivation to keep it alive. unfortunately replacing widgets makes problems with newer fxruby versions. yet, i don''t know what else is broken. i will fix that recently. -- henon On 2/1/06, Diego Cano Lagneaux <d.cano.lagneaux at gmail.com> wrote:> > > hi fxruby users! > > > > i decided to maybe put some efforts into a new release of foxguib. as > > the creator and maintainer of foxguib (who sadly never got much > > feedback) i am very interested if it is worth the effort. often i > > heard the opinion: "well, foxguib is nice, but i prefer coding my > > interfaces by hand." > > Personally, I find GUI coding the most boring coding there is, so I really > appreciate something like foxguib. I discovered it 2 days ago, and rapidly > try it. I don''t have much experience of it yet, but what I would like on a > next release of foxguib would be > a) More documentation > b) Maybe some way to add messages to the components? > > When I am more familiar with the program, I''ll see to answer directly in > the project''s site. > _______________________________________________ > fxruby-users mailing list > fxruby-users at rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/fxruby-users >
Hi,
I just tried it to see what the fuss was about. I definitely think you
should keep going. It''s looking really good. A lot farther along than
I thought it would be. A short tutorial would really be nice.
Jacob
See ya,
--
_/ _/ _/ Jacob Hanson
_/ _/_/_/ mailto:jacdx at jacobhanson.com
_/_/_/ _/ _/ http://www.jacobhanson.com
Wednesday, February 1, 2006, 12:41:29 PM, you wrote:> thanks for the comment!! it gives me motivation to keep it alive.
> unfortunately replacing widgets makes problems with newer fxruby
> versions. yet, i don''t know what else is broken. i will fix that
> recently.
> -- henon
> On 2/1/06, Diego Cano Lagneaux <d.cano.lagneaux at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > hi fxruby users!
>> >
>> > i decided to maybe put some efforts into a new release of foxguib.
as
>> > the creator and maintainer of foxguib (who sadly never got much
>> > feedback) i am very interested if it is worth the effort. often i
>> > heard the opinion: "well, foxguib is nice, but i prefer
coding my
>> > interfaces by hand."
>>
>> Personally, I find GUI coding the most boring coding there is, so I
really
>> appreciate something like foxguib. I discovered it 2 days ago, and
rapidly
>> try it. I don''t have much experience of it yet, but what I
would like on a
>> next release of foxguib would be
>> a) More documentation
>> b) Maybe some way to add messages to the components?
>>
>> When I am more familiar with the program, I''ll see to answer
directly in
>> the project''s site.
>> _______________________________________________
>> fxruby-users mailing list
>> fxruby-users at rubyforge.org
>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/fxruby-users
On Wednesday 01 February 2006 20:42, Diego Cano Lagneaux wrote:> > hi fxruby users! > > > > i decided to maybe put some efforts into a new release of foxguib. as > > the creator and maintainer of foxguib (who sadly never got much > > feedback) i am very interested if it is worth the effort. often i > > heard the opinion: "well, foxguib is nice, but i prefer coding my > > interfaces by hand." > > Personally, I find GUI coding the most boring coding there is, so I really > appreciate something like foxguib. I discovered it 2 days ago, and rapidly > try it. I don''t have much experience of it yet, but what I would like on a > next release of foxguib would be > a) More documentation > b) Maybe some way to add messages to the components?I could not agree more - coding a gui is boring, especially with trial and error approach. And a good gui requires a lot of coding. A builder would be great. I tried foxguib some time ago (October 05 I believe) on my work win laptop and what I quit at was the lack of documentation. Although I had to admit I had downloaded it to try it out on a cross-atlantic flight, so I did not have access to the wiki-page. Would it be a good idea to bundle whatever documentation there is into the download and add a link to the foxguib home saying something like "Check the latest doc to make sure you are up to date" or some such. I just tried it on my linux laptop and all I got was a crash: antti at hyperion:~/downloaded/ruby/foxGUIb> ruby foxGUIb.rbw ./FX.rb:634: uninitialized constant FX::Text (NameError) from foxGUIb.rbw:11 antti at hyperion:~/downloaded/ruby/foxGUIb> ruby -rfox14 foxGUIb.rbw /usr/local/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/i686-linux/fox12.so: [BUG] Segmentation fault ruby 1.8.4 (2005-12-24) [i686-linux] Aborted antti at hyperion:~/downloaded/ruby/foxGUIb> ruby -rfox12 foxGUIb.rbw ./FX.rb:634: uninitialized constant FX::Text (NameError) from foxGUIb.rbw:11 Could be my environment, too. I''m running Suse 9.1, ruby 1.8.4, fxruby 1.4.4 (although the .so file for fxruby 1.2 seems to still be there, too) and fox 1.4.26. Maybe it could be mentioned in the documentation what version combination of ruby-fox-fxruby the builder has been verified to work on, and of course on what os(es), too? But to answer the original quetion: if I am able to get the foxguib up and running and can actually build a gui with it, I''ll be sure to use it! I''m working on a moderately large fxruby gui atm and could really use a tool like this. -Antti-
hi antti, i migrated to linux a couple of month ago, so i now got the possibilities to test on linux too. On 2/1/06, Antti Karanta <Antti.Karanta at iki.fi> wrote:>[....]> > I just tried it on my linux laptop and all I got was a crash: > > antti at hyperion:~/downloaded/ruby/foxGUIb> ruby foxGUIb.rbw > ./FX.rb:634: uninitialized constant FX::Text (NameError) > from foxGUIb.rbw:11 > antti at hyperion:~/downloaded/ruby/foxGUIb> ruby -rfox14 foxGUIb.rbw > /usr/local/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/i686-linux/fox12.so: [BUG] Segmentation > fault > ruby 1.8.4 (2005-12-24) [i686-linux] > > Aborted > antti at hyperion:~/downloaded/ruby/foxGUIb> ruby -rfox12 foxGUIb.rbw > ./FX.rb:634: uninitialized constant FX::Text (NameError) > from foxGUIb.rbw:11 > > Could be my environment, too. I''m running Suse 9.1, ruby 1.8.4, fxruby 1.4.4 > (although the .so file for fxruby 1.2 seems to still be there, too) and fox > 1.4.26.on linux it runs if you completely comment the following lines in FX.rb:626 out: if Fox.constants.include? "FXScintilla" class Scintilla < Fox::FXScintilla def initialize(p, opts=0) super(p, nil, 0, opts) end end else puts "Fox::FXScintilla not found! Substituting Fox::FXText." Scintilla = Text end> > Maybe it could be mentioned in the documentation what version combination of > ruby-fox-fxruby the builder has been verified to work on, and of course on > what os(es), too?ok. the current download works with fxruby 1.2.6 on win32 (and linux if you manually fix the previously mentioned problem). i am currently working on the release for fxruby 1.4.4 which broke the replacement of widgets.> > > But to answer the original quetion: if I am able to get the foxguib up and > running and can actually build a gui with it, I''ll be sure to use it! I''m > working on a moderately large fxruby gui atm and could really use a tool like > this. > > > > -Antti- >thanks a lotfor your comments!!! regards, -- henon
Hello Meinrad, I can only assent to the statements of the other users who responded to your mail: I ''ve created FXRuby gui''s manually before I knew foxguib. This wasn''t fun at all and so I really appreciate a gui builder like foxguib. I''m really contented with foxguib, but as you have asked for points to be enforced: - even more stability is always a good thing (the versions before 0.4.1 crashed very often, 0.4.1 seems to be much better) - could you make the ascii file format (pp) the default (instead of the rbin format) -- if something goes wrong with export / import it gives you a (little) chance to repair things with a text editor - foxguib seems to save a lot more attributes than necessary (e.g. absolute widget positions) -- maybe you could only save the necessary attributes. - help with "complicated widgets" would be nice (it takes some trails until you know how to create menu bars with menus or tabbooks). Best regards Dirk -- Telefonieren Sie schon oder sparen Sie noch? NEU: GMX Phone_Flat http://www.gmx.net/de/go/telefonie
On Thursday 02 February 2006 11:25, Meinrad Recheis wrote:> on linux it runs if you completely comment the following lines in FX.rb:626 > out:Ok, thanks, that got it up and running. However, none of the widgets in the middle are showing, instead they all have the text PNG, which I think means the program can not find the images? When I make a dialog and add widgets, it comes out ok. I may be a bit thick w/ this, but some examples would be great - I know enough fxruby to build some sort of gui (it''s a huge library - still learning), but I find it hard to construct a gui using the builder. For some reason I can e.g. get (some) widgets shown in the created dialog when building a dialog but none when building a main window. = / If there are people using the foxguib, here would be a great place to contribute: step by step examples/guides, possibly w/ pictures showing how you proceed, would help a newbie like me along nicely!> > Maybe it could be mentioned in the documentation what version > > combination of ruby-fox-fxruby the builder has been verified to work on, > > and of course on what os(es), too? > > ok. > the current download works with fxruby 1.2.6 on win32 (and linux if > you manually fix the previously mentioned problem). i am currently > working on the release for fxruby 1.4.4 which broke the replacement of > widgets.I think this would be useful to have on the web-page. -Antti-
On Mon, 6 Feb 2006 20:56:04 +0200, Antti Karanta <Antti.Karanta at iki.fi> wrote :> Ok, thanks, that got it up and running. However, none of the widgets in the > middle are showing, instead they all have the text PNG, which I think means > the program can not find the images?It doesn''t mean that the program can''t find the images; it means that your FOX library (the C++ library) was built without PNG support.
On 6 Feb 2006 20:02:32 -0000, lyle at knology.net <lyle at knology.net> wrote:> > On Mon, 6 Feb 2006 20:56:04 +0200, Antti Karanta <Antti.Karanta at iki.fi> wrote : > > > Ok, thanks, that got it up and running. However, none of the widgets in the > > middle are showing, instead they all have the text PNG, which I think means > > the program can not find the images? > > It doesn''t mean that the program can''t find the images; it means that your > FOX library (the C++ library) was built without PNG support.is there an image format that is supported by the FOX library for sure? how about TGA?
when you build the fox library you need to have the compile headers for the various graphic libraries somewhere where the configure script can find them. I ended up installing them all by hand, but that was on Mac OS X. What platform are you on and how did you install fox? R Meinrad Recheis wrote:> On 6 Feb 2006 20:02:32 -0000, lyle at knology.net <lyle at knology.net> wrote: >> On Mon, 6 Feb 2006 20:56:04 +0200, Antti Karanta <Antti.Karanta at iki.fi> wrote : >> >>> Ok, thanks, that got it up and running. However, none of the widgets in the >>> middle are showing, instead they all have the text PNG, which I think means >>> the program can not find the images? >> It doesn''t mean that the program can''t find the images; it means that your >> FOX library (the C++ library) was built without PNG support. > > is there an image format that is supported by the FOX library for > sure? how about TGA? > > _______________________________________________ > fxruby-users mailing list > fxruby-users at rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/fxruby-users
On Mon, 6 Feb 2006 21:19:08 +0100, Meinrad Recheis <meinrad.recheis at gmail.com> wrote :> is there an image format that is supported by the FOX library for > sure? how about TGA?Oh, sure. I think that the only image file formats that are *not* currently built-in are JPEG, PNG and TIFF. GIF and TGA are built-in, and several others that I can''t call to mind at the moment...
On 2/6/06, Russell Fulton <r.fulton at auckland.ac.nz> wrote:> when you build the fox library you need to have the compile headers for > the various graphic libraries somewhere where the configure script can > find them. I ended up installing them all by hand, but that was on Mac > OS X. > > What platform are you on and how did you install fox?i am currently on a debian linux. but that doesn''t matter. i was only curious wether there was a fallback imageformat which works on any platform in the case that there are no image libraries. -- henon [...]
On Monday 06 February 2006 14:19, Meinrad Recheis wrote:> On 6 Feb 2006 20:02:32 -0000, lyle at knology.net <lyle at knology.net> wrote: > > > > On Mon, 6 Feb 2006 20:56:04 +0200, Antti Karanta <Antti.Karanta at iki.fi> wrote : > > > > > Ok, thanks, that got it up and running. However, none of the widgets in the > > > middle are showing, instead they all have the text PNG, which I think means > > > the program can not find the images? > > > > It doesn''t mean that the program can''t find the images; it means that your > > FOX library (the C++ library) was built without PNG support. > > is there an image format that is supported by the FOX library for > sure? how about TGA?The image formats which are "built-in" are GIF, BMP, TGA, RGB, RAS, XPM, XBM, PPM, ICO, PCX; the other three JPEG, PNG, and TIFF require external libraries. - Jeroen -- +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Copyright (C) 18:50 02/ 6/2006 Jeroen van der Zijp. All Rights Reserved. | +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
On Monday 06 February 2006 22:26, Russell Fulton wrote:> when you build the fox library you need to have the compile headers for > the various graphic libraries somewhere where the configure script can > find them. I ended up installing them all by hand, but that was on Mac > OS X. > > What platform are you on and how did you install fox?Suse Linux 9.1 on a Dell Latitude c600 laptop. I installed fox by building from source. I believe it was the standard spell: ./configure make sudo make install What magic do I need to perform to get support for the optional image formats on linux? -Antti-
On Tue, 7 Feb 2006 19:16:13 +0200, Antti Karanta <Antti.Karanta at iki.fi> wrote :> What magic do I need to perform to get support for the optional image > formats on linux?I''ve never used SuSE Linux and so I''m unfamiliar with their package naming conventions, etc. but you''ll want to install the "developer" packages for PNG, JPEG and TIFF -- the ones that have the include files (and not just the shared runtime libraries) in them. Once you''ve installed those packages, you will need to wipe out your previous FOX build and do the "configure; make; make install" dance again. Pay attention during the "configure" step to confirm that it finds the PNG/JPEG/TIFF stuff when it checks for it (it should say something like "checking for PNG.... yes". Hope this helps, Lyle
On Tuesday 07 February 2006 19:42, lyle at knology.net wrote:> On Tue, 7 Feb 2006 19:16:13 +0200, Antti Karanta <Antti.Karanta at iki.fi>wrote :> > What magic do I need to perform to get support for the optional image > > formats on linux? > > I''ve never used SuSE Linux and so I''m unfamiliar with their package naming > conventions, etc. but you''ll want to install the "developer" packages for > PNG, JPEG and TIFF -- the ones that have the include files (and not just > the shared runtime libraries) in them. > > Once you''ve installed those packages, you will need to wipe out your > previous FOX build and do the "configure; make; make install" dance again. > Pay attention during the "configure" step to confirm that it finds the > PNG/JPEG/TIFF stuff when it checks for it (it should say something like > "checking for PNG.... yes".Ok, I installed the dev packages for the image libraries and when running ./configure I got checking jpeglib.h usability... yes checking jpeglib.h presence... yes checking for jpeglib.h... yes checking png.h usability... yes checking png.h presence... yes checking for png.h... yes checking tiff.h usability... yes checking tiff.h presence... yes checking for tiff.h... yes So I guess that means I should be getting the pics... but no. The one thing I did not do is wipe out the old fox before I went through the compilation/installation dance. I figured that the old stuff will get overwritten. Besides, I have to admit I''m not quite sure how to remove a lib that is not under rpm - just delete the related files? That is, if you know what the files are and where they are... Should I have done a make clean before proceeding? Now I just went for the ./configure -> make -> sudo make install thinking that make will notice the differences. Judging by the time the compile took at least most stuff was recompiled. I also recompiled and reinstalled FXRuby. Among other things, ruby install.rb config let me know that checking for png_create_read_struct() in -lpng... yes checking for deflate() in -lz... yes checking for jpeg_mem_init() in -ljpeg... yes checking for TIFFSetErrorHandler() in -ltiff... yes Any ideas? BTW, I just tried again the FXRuby examples and the pics on those (at least the ones I looked at) are shown fine. What is not working are the png:s in foxguib. -Antti-
Antti Karanta wrote:>> The one thing I did not do is wipe out the old fox before I went through the > compilation/installation dance. I figured that the old stuff will get > overwritten. Besides, I have to admit I''m not quite sure how to remove a lib > that is not under rpm - just delete the related files? That is, if you know > what the files are and where they are... > > Should I have done a > make clean > before proceeding?This is always a good idea. check by looking at the time stamps on the .o and the library files to see if they were in fact recompiled. Whether or not you need to do a make clean depends of if the developer made everything dependent on the make file which is all the configure changes. Now I just went for the ./configure -> make -> sudo make> install thinking that make will notice the differences. Judging by the time > the compile took at least most stuff was recompiled. > > I also recompiled and reinstalled FXRuby. Among other things, > ruby install.rb config > let me know that > > checking for png_create_read_struct() in -lpng... yes > checking for deflate() in -lz... yes > checking for jpeg_mem_init() in -ljpeg... yes > checking for TIFFSetErrorHandler() in -ltiff... yes > > Any ideas? > > BTW, I just tried again the FXRuby examples and the pics on those (at least > the ones I looked at) are shown fine. What is not working are the png:s in > foxguib. >this certainly seems to suggest that things were recompiled and that the library picked up the new libraries. R
On Wednesday 08 February 2006 22:36, you wrote:> this certainly seems to suggest that things were recompiled and that the > library picked up the new libraries.What a dumb mistake from me - foxguib uses fxruby 1.2 (and fox 1.2) whereas I compiled a new version of fox 1.4 and run the examples against fxruby 1.4. So I compiled fox 1.2 and now the images look fine. It baffles me a little, though, that I did not recompile fxruby 1.2, so I guess it does not require the info about the availability of the image libraries at compile time? Even though it seemed to look them up? Anyhow, now it''s working, thanks for your help! -Antti-
On Thu, 9 Feb 2006 19:38:01 +0200, Antti Karanta <Antti.Karanta at iki.fi> wrote :> So I compiled fox 1.2 and now the images look fine. It baffles me a little, > though, that I did not recompile fxruby 1.2, so I guess it does not require > the info about the availability of the image libraries at compile time? Even > though it seemed to look them up?When you compile FOX (the C++ library) it checks for the presence of (for example) the PNG library and header file(s). If it finds them, then there is PNG-specific code in the FOX source code that explicitly depends on the declarations in the PNG header file(s). That''s why it''s so critical to make sure that your FOX library was configured and built properly. When you configure FXRuby, it also checks for the availability of the PNG library so that it will be sure to link the FXRuby extension with that library. It doesn''t, however, contain any PNG-specific code. FXRuby depends on FOX, which depends on PNG, so libpng still needs to show up in FXRuby''s link line. I know it may be a little confusing. But I am glad to hear that things are working properly for you now!
Antti Karanta wrote:>> > So I compiled fox 1.2 and now the images look fine.I notice that there are several important apps that only work with fox1.2 (including freeride). What is the issue that prevents these apps being moved to 1.4? Russell
i *guess* it''s due to the massive changes of the fxruby api. please dont take it as an offence, lyle ;) every time a new version of fox is released, the fxruby api changes a lot. a big gui application can become totally broken and it may require days to port it to the new fxruby version. i know it from my own experience @ work ;) until now we stayed with fxruby 1.0.28 at work because nobody wanted to pay the porting time. i am working for 2 days now on it and its still not completed. On 2/9/06, Russell Fulton <r.fulton at auckland.ac.nz> wrote:> > > Antti Karanta wrote: > >> > > So I compiled fox 1.2 and now the images look fine. > > I notice that there are several important apps that only work with > fox1.2 (including freeride). What is the issue that prevents these apps > being moved to 1.4? > > Russell > _______________________________________________ > fxruby-users mailing list > fxruby-users at rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/fxruby-users >
Meinrad Recheis wrote:> i *guess* it''s due to the massive changes of the fxruby api. please > dont take it as an offence, lyle ;) > > every time a new version of fox is released, the fxruby api changes a > lot.Thanks, I''m new to both Ruby and fox so this is useful background. So what you are saying is that major improvement to FXRuby have been released to coincide with the fox releases. I can see why Lyle did this, I firmly believe that backward compatibility is often overrated even if it does cause short term pain. I seem to remember seeing that fox 1.6 is nearing release. Lyle are you planning any more major changes to the api? Just curious ;) Russell
Hm, I remember 1.0->1.2 was a bit painful, but 1.2->1.4 was almost no effort, so the API seems to have settled down. Meinrad Recheis wrote:> i *guess* it''s due to the massive changes of the fxruby api. please > dont take it as an offence, lyle ;) > > every time a new version of fox is released, the fxruby api changes a > lot. a big gui application can become totally broken and it may > require days to port it to the new fxruby version. i know it from my > own experience @ work ;) until now we stayed with fxruby 1.0.28 at > work because nobody wanted to pay the porting time. i am working for 2 > days now on it and its still not completed. > > > On 2/9/06, Russell Fulton <r.fulton at auckland.ac.nz> wrote: >> >> Antti Karanta wrote: >>> So I compiled fox 1.2 and now the images look fine. >> I notice that there are several important apps that only work with >> fox1.2 (including freeride). What is the issue that prevents these apps >> being moved to 1.4? >> >> Russell >> _______________________________________________ >> fxruby-users mailing list >> fxruby-users at rubyforge.org >> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/fxruby-users >> > > _______________________________________________ > fxruby-users mailing list > fxruby-users at rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/fxruby-users-- vjoel : Joel VanderWerf : path berkeley edu : 510 665 3407
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 09:37:29 +1300, Russell Fulton <r.fulton at auckland.ac.nz> wrote :> Thanks, I''m new to both Ruby and fox so this is useful background. > > So what you are saying is that major improvement to FXRuby have been > released to coincide with the fox releases. I can see why Lyle did > this, I firmly believe that backward compatibility is often overrated > even if it does cause short term pain. > > I seem to remember seeing that fox 1.6 is nearing release. Lyle are you > planning any more major changes to the api? Just curious ;)Let''s be clear that I have no control over changes to the FOX API -- that''s Jeroen''s call. And he *is* fond of making sweeping API changes when he goes to a new major release of FOX. Most of the time, those changes are for good reasons (e.g. to make things less confusing, or to make APIs consistent with each other). Joel is correct that there were a number of major changes between FOX versions 1.0 and 1.2, but that it wasn''t as bad going from 1.2 to 1.4. In my opinion, you shouldn''t experience much pain in going from 1.4 to 1.6, either. When it''s possible, I''ll add some APIs to maintain backwards compatibility. For example, when Jeroen removed the linkBefore() and linkAfter() member functions from the FXWindow class in FOX 1.4, I added "pure Ruby" versions of these methods (in FXRuby 1.4) so that old code wouldn''t break. Sometimes it''s not that simple, though, and things get broken as a result. ;)
On Thu, 9 Feb 2006 21:26:07 +0100, Meinrad Recheis <meinrad.recheis at gmail.com> wrote :> i *guess* it''s due to the massive changes of the fxruby api. please > dont take it as an offence, lyle ;)No offense taken. Yes, there were definitely significant API changes between FOX (and FXRuby) versions 1.0 and 1.2. It''s more difficult to catch those changes since we don''t have a compiler that is checking each and every line of code against the class declarations (as is the case with C++ code). That shouldn''t necessarily be construed as a vote in favor of C++, though. ;)
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 10:40:31 +1300, Russell Fulton <r.fulton at auckland.ac.nz> wrote :> Thanks for the clarification -- you were responding to changes in Fox > this makes more sense. Meinrad''s email did not explain this and > definitely left the impression that the changes were just in FXRuby.Well, a lot of people (and I''m not suggesting that Henon is in this group) don''t make a distinction between FOX and FXRuby. They assume that I have the power to fix bugs in FOX, to make decisions about its look and feel, etc. I don''t get the impression that people have that same confusion about other GUI toolkits, like GTK and wxRuby, but what can you say or do?> Hmmm... interesting since most of the apps I have come across that > require older fox versions require 1.2. I really don''t want to install > two versions (three when 1.6 comes out ?).FXRuby 1.4 was released last August, but for whatever reasons, a lot of projects never upgraded their applications from FXRuby 1.2. It would probably have helped to provide some kind of porting guide, pointing out every thing that changed between versions 1.2 and 1.4, but I was already running late as it was and so that never materialized. Perhaps I will be able to provide some better guidance for upgrading from 1.4 to 1.6, since I seem to be *ahead* of the game with FXRuby 1.6 this time. ;)