Freeldr Question

[Alex Ionescu]

Hi,

Freeldr currently contains an ugly (imo) wrapper around the GUI where 
every drawing operation is supposed to have multiple "modes" (some fancy 
3d gizmo whizmo GUI and the normal text-mode interface). I would really 
like to simply this interface and make the drawing operations much 
simpler and just draw, instead of going through all the hoops they do 
now. But before I do, does anyone have any objections? Is anyone working 
on  fancy 3D GUI for Freeldr, or can I go ahead with my changes? Note 
nothing would change to the user, everything will look and act the exact 
same way as it does now.

Best regards,
Alex Ionescu

[art yerkes]

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 20:36:20 -0500
Alex Ionescu <ionucu(a)videotron.ca> wrote:

>   Hi,
>  
>  Freeldr currently contains an ugly (imo) wrapper around the GUI where 
>  every drawing operation is supposed to have multiple "modes" (some fancy 
>  3d gizmo whizmo GUI and the normal text-mode interface). I would really 
>  like to simply this interface and make the drawing operations much 
>  simpler and just draw, instead of going through all the hoops they do 
>  now. But before I do, does anyone have any objections? Is anyone working 
>  on  fancy 3D GUI for Freeldr, or can I go ahead with my changes? Note 
>  nothing would change to the user, everything will look and act the exact 
>  same way as it does now. 
Before you do it, I'd like to coordinate a bit, just so I know what I'll
have to do for porting.
-- 
Here's a simple experiment. Stand on a train track between two locomotives
which are pushing on you with equal force in opposite directions. You will
exhibit no net motion. None the less, you may soon begin to notice that
something important is happening.
-- Robert Stirniman

[Brian Palmer]

Hi,

So in what way do you propose changing it? How will it work after you're
done?

-Brian

-----Original Message-----
From: ros-dev-bounces(a)reactos.org [mailto:[e-mail]] On
Behalf Of Alex Ionescu
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 6:36 PM
To: ReactOS Development List
Subject: [ros-dev] Freeldr Question

Hi,

Freeldr currently contains an ugly (imo) wrapper around the GUI where 
every drawing operation is supposed to have multiple "modes" (some fancy 
3d gizmo whizmo GUI and the normal text-mode interface). I would really 
like to simply this interface and make the drawing operations much 
simpler and just draw, instead of going through all the hoops they do 
now. But before I do, does anyone have any objections? Is anyone working 
on  fancy 3D GUI for Freeldr, or can I go ahead with my changes? Note 
nothing would change to the user, everything will look and act the exact 
same way as it does now.

Best regards,
Alex Ionescu
_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[Alex Ionescu]

Brian/Art

I just want to make all drawings calls directly "Tui" instead of 
"Ui"->CheckMode->"Tui" and combine gui.c/tui.c/tuimenu.c and
gui/ui/tui.h
Nothign else would change.

Best regards,
Alex Ionescu

Brian Palmer wrote:

>  Hi,
>
> So in what way do you propose changing it? How will it work after you're
> done?
>
> -Brian
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ros-dev-bounces(a)reactos.org [mailto:[e-mail]] On
> Behalf Of Alex Ionescu
> Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 6:36 PM
> To: ReactOS Development List
> Subject: [ros-dev] Freeldr Question
>
> Hi,
>
> Freeldr currently contains an ugly (imo) wrapper around the GUI where 
> every drawing operation is supposed to have multiple "modes" (some fancy 
> 3d gizmo whizmo GUI and the normal text-mode interface). I would really 
> like to simply this interface and make the drawing operations much 
> simpler and just draw, instead of going through all the hoops they do 
> now. But before I do, does anyone have any objections? Is anyone working 
> on  fancy 3D GUI for Freeldr, or can I go ahead with my changes? Note 
> nothing would change to the user, everything will look and act the exact 
> same way as it does now.
>
> Best regards,
> Alex Ionescu
>   
>

[Brian Palmer]

So are you going to implement a GUI for it then? Or what is the reasoning
behind this change?

-Brian

-----Original Message-----
From: ros-dev-bounces(a)reactos.org [mailto:[e-mail]] On
Behalf Of Alex Ionescu
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 8:18 PM
To: ReactOS Development List
Subject: Re: [ros-dev] Freeldr Question

Brian/Art

I just want to make all drawings calls directly "Tui" instead of 
"Ui"->CheckMode->"Tui" and combine gui.c/tui.c/tuimenu.c and
gui/ui/tui.h
Nothign else would change.

Best regards,
Alex Ionescu

Brian Palmer wrote:

>  Hi,
>
> So in what way do you propose changing it? How will it work after you're
> done?
>
> -Brian
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ros-dev-bounces(a)reactos.org [mailto:[e-mail]] On
> Behalf Of Alex Ionescu
> Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 6:36 PM
> To: ReactOS Development List
> Subject: [ros-dev] Freeldr Question
>
> Hi,
>
> Freeldr currently contains an ugly (imo) wrapper around the GUI where 
> every drawing operation is supposed to have multiple "modes" (some fancy 
> 3d gizmo whizmo GUI and the normal text-mode interface). I would really 
> like to simply this interface and make the drawing operations much 
> simpler and just draw, instead of going through all the hoops they do 
> now. But before I do, does anyone have any objections? Is anyone working 
> on  fancy 3D GUI for Freeldr, or can I go ahead with my changes? Note 
> nothing would change to the user, everything will look and act the exact 
> same way as it does now.
>
> Best regards,
> Alex Ionescu
>   
>  
_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[Alex Ionescu]

Hi Brian,

No, it would keep the same GUI as it has now, since people seem 
comfortable with it. (I did get a lot of requests for the NTLDR-like 
interface and I might code one in as an optional interface since it's 
only 30 lines of code, but that's beside the question at the moment).

The reasoning is like I said earlier, tidying up the code and reducing 
complexity in the software, which are very important parts of good 
development and a scalable codebase.

Best regards,
Alex Ionescu

Brian Palmer wrote:

>  So are you going to implement a GUI for it then? Or
> what is the reasoning
> behind this change?
>
> -Brian
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ros-dev-bounces(a)reactos.org [mailto:[e-mail]] On
> Behalf Of Alex Ionescu
> Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 8:18 PM
> To: ReactOS Development List
> Subject: Re: [ros-dev] Freeldr Question
>
> Brian/Art
>
> I just want to make all drawings calls directly "Tui" instead of 
> "Ui"->CheckMode->"Tui" and combine gui.c/tui.c/tuimenu.c and
> gui/ui/tui.h
> Nothign else would change.
>
> Best regards,
> Alex Ionescu
>
> Brian Palmer wrote:
>
>   
>
> >Hi,
> >
> >So in what way do you propose changing it? How will it work after you're
> >done?
> >
> >-Brian
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: ros-dev-bounces(a)reactos.org [mailto:[e-mail]] On
> >Behalf Of Alex Ionescu
> >Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 6:36 PM
> >To: ReactOS Development List
> >Subject: [ros-dev] Freeldr Question
> >
> >Hi,
> >
> >Freeldr currently contains an ugly (imo) wrapper around the GUI where 
> >every drawing operation is supposed to have multiple "modes" (some fancy 
> >3d gizmo whizmo GUI and the normal text-mode interface). I would really 
> >like to simply this interface and make the drawing operations much 
> >simpler and just draw, instead of going through all the hoops they do 
> >now. But before I do, does anyone have any objections? Is anyone working 
> >on  fancy 3D GUI for Freeldr, or can I go ahead with my changes? Note 
> >nothing would change to the user, everything will look and act the exact 
> >same way as it does now.
> >
> >Best regards,
> >Alex Ionescu
> > 
> >
> >    
> >

[Brian Palmer]

Alex,

I don't see the point of what you are trying to do. IIRC, all of
FreeLoader's code is organized like the UI stuff - you just make generic
calls and the abstraction code handles the details. It's kind of like C++
objects, only not. Take, for instance, FreeLoader's file system code, it is
the exact same way. You just call generic routines like open, close, read,
and write, and the file system code checks what file system it is and
redirects the function call accordingly.

Unless I don't understand what you are proposing, it sounds like you want to
just lump all the UI code into one huge file. And I think that is a step
backward from the current design. I'll admit that checking the UI type on
every call and calling the GUI code or the TUI code isn't the most efficient
way. And you could make it more efficient by setting up pointers to
functions.

But unless you are talking about removing the GUI code altogether (it isn't
used currently) you will still have to do the checks to see if DrawBox(),
etc. needs to go to the TUI code or the GUI code. Now don't get me wrong, I
don't think removing the GUI code is the right thing to do. It is a very
good starting point for someone to make a graphical menu system for
FreeLoader. It would be very cool someday to be able to set a company logo
or something as background image in the boot screen.

I'd like to know more about what you are thinking...

-Brian

-----Original Message-----
From: ros-dev-bounces(a)reactos.org [mailto:[e-mail]] On
Behalf Of Alex Ionescu
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 9:17 PM
To: ReactOS Development List
Subject: Re: [ros-dev] Freeldr Question

Hi Brian,

No, it would keep the same GUI as it has now, since people seem 
comfortable with it. (I did get a lot of requests for the NTLDR-like 
interface and I might code one in as an optional interface since it's 
only 30 lines of code, but that's beside the question at the moment).

The reasoning is like I said earlier, tidying up the code and reducing 
complexity in the software, which are very important parts of good 
development and a scalable codebase.

Best regards,
Alex Ionescu

Brian Palmer wrote:

>  So are you going to implement a GUI for it then? Or
> what is the reasoning
> behind this change?
>
> -Brian
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ros-dev-bounces(a)reactos.org [mailto:[e-mail]] On
> Behalf Of Alex Ionescu
> Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 8:18 PM
> To: ReactOS Development List
> Subject: Re: [ros-dev] Freeldr Question
>
> Brian/Art
>
> I just want to make all drawings calls directly "Tui" instead of 
> "Ui"->CheckMode->"Tui" and combine gui.c/tui.c/tuimenu.c and
> gui/ui/tui.h
> Nothign else would change.
>
> Best regards,
> Alex Ionescu
>
> Brian Palmer wrote:
>
>   
>
> >Hi,
> >
> >So in what way do you propose changing it? How will it work after you're
> >done?
> >
> >-Brian
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: ros-dev-bounces(a)reactos.org [mailto:[e-mail]] On
> >Behalf Of Alex Ionescu
> >Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 6:36 PM
> >To: ReactOS Development List
> >Subject: [ros-dev] Freeldr Question
> >
> >Hi,
> >
> >Freeldr currently contains an ugly (imo) wrapper around the GUI where 
> >every drawing operation is supposed to have multiple "modes" (some fancy 
> >3d gizmo whizmo GUI and the normal text-mode interface). I would really 
> >like to simply this interface and make the drawing operations much 
> >simpler and just draw, instead of going through all the hoops they do 
> >now. But before I do, does anyone have any objections? Is anyone working 
> >on  fancy 3D GUI for Freeldr, or can I go ahead with my changes? Note 
> >nothing would change to the user, everything will look and act the exact 
> >same way as it does now.
> >
> >Best regards,
> >Alex Ionescu
> > 
> >
> >    
> > 
_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[Alex Ionescu]

Hi Brian,

That's exactly what I'm saying. Removing GUI Mode. It's never existed, 
and I doubt it will ever exist. Of course the Mach "Vtables" are useful 
and required to objectify low-level calls and route-them through 
different functions, but since GUI mode doesn't exist and never has 
existed it's only making things complicated for no reason.

You can't keep a feature in just because "mabe one day we'll need it". 
Nobody has touched it in 4, 5 years now? I've given technical arguments 
on why this UI abstraction is a bad idea, do you have any for the pro 
side, except that "one day it might be needed?". Because if we apply 
that to everything then we'll end up with a million wrappers.

I know you wrote most of Freeloader but you have to be willing to accept 
that you haven't had a lot of time to work on it (or else I assume you'd 
have coded GUI mode by now) and that it's time to allow people to 
improve it, if it's for the best, even if it doesn't match your grand 
ideas (trust me, I know it's hard).

Right now this abstraction is a technical mistake and offers no 
benefits. I've been wanting to remove it for a year now, but I gave it a 
chance to see if anyone was interested in using it; all I saw was people 
b*tching about how much GUI freeloder -already- has.

If a company wants a company logo one day, let them pay us for the 
feature and listen what, I'll code it myself. It's not hard to revert 
some code.

Anyways, I won't press the issue farther; I've stated my position.

Best regards,
Alex Ionescu

Brian Palmer wrote:

>  Alex,
>
> I don't see the point of what you are trying to do. IIRC, all of
> FreeLoader's code is organized like the UI stuff - you just make generic
> calls and the abstraction code handles the details. It's kind of like C++
> objects, only not. Take, for instance, FreeLoader's file system code, it is
> the exact same way. You just call generic routines like open, close, read,
> and write, and the file system code checks what file system it is and
> redirects the function call accordingly.
>
> Unless I don't understand what you are proposing, it sounds like you want to
> just lump all the UI code into one huge file. And I think that is a step
> backward from the current design. I'll admit that checking the UI type on
> every call and calling the GUI code or the TUI code isn't the most efficient
> way. And you could make it more efficient by setting up pointers to
> functions.
>
> But unless you are talking about removing the GUI code altogether (it isn't
> used currently) you will still have to do the checks to see if DrawBox(),
> etc. needs to go to the TUI code or the GUI code. Now don't get me wrong, I
> don't think removing the GUI code is the right thing to do. It is a very
> good starting point for someone to make a graphical menu system for
> FreeLoader. It would be very cool someday to be able to set a company logo
> or something as background image in the boot screen.
>
> I'd like to know more about what you are thinking...
>
> -Brian
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ros-dev-bounces(a)reactos.org [mailto:[e-mail]] On
> Behalf Of Alex Ionescu
> Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 9:17 PM
> To: ReactOS Development List
> Subject: Re: [ros-dev] Freeldr Question
>
> Hi Brian,
>
> No, it would keep the same GUI as it has now, since people seem 
> comfortable with it. (I did get a lot of requests for the NTLDR-like 
> interface and I might code one in as an optional interface since it's 
> only 30 lines of code, but that's beside the question at the moment).
>
> The reasoning is like I said earlier, tidying up the code and reducing 
> complexity in the software, which are very important parts of good 
> development and a scalable codebase.
>
> Best regards,
> Alex Ionescu
>
> Brian Palmer wrote:
>
>   
>
> >So are you going to implement a GUI for it then? Or what is the reasoning
> >behind this change?
> >
> >-Brian
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: ros-dev-bounces(a)reactos.org [mailto:[e-mail]] On
> >Behalf Of Alex Ionescu
> >Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 8:18 PM
> >To: ReactOS Development List
> >Subject: Re: [ros-dev] Freeldr Question
> >
> >Brian/Art
> >
> >I just want to make all drawings calls directly "Tui" instead of 
> >"Ui"->CheckMode->"Tui" and combine gui.c/tui.c/tuimenu.c and
> gui/ui/tui.h
> >Nothign else would change.
> >
> >Best regards,
> >Alex Ionescu
> >
> >Brian Palmer wrote:
> >
> > 
> >
> >    
> >
> >>Hi,
> >>
> >>So in what way do you propose changing it? How will it work after you're
> >>done?
> >>
> >>-Brian
> >>
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: ros-dev-bounces(a)reactos.org [mailto:[e-mail]] On
> >>Behalf Of Alex Ionescu
> >>Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 6:36 PM
> >>To: ReactOS Development List
> >>Subject: [ros-dev] Freeldr Question
> >>
> >>Hi,
> >>
> >>Freeldr currently contains an ugly (imo) wrapper around the GUI where 
> >>every drawing operation is supposed to have multiple "modes" (some fancy
>
> >>3d gizmo whizmo GUI and the normal text-mode interface). I would really 
> >>like to simply this interface and make the drawing operations much 
> >>simpler and just draw, instead of going through all the hoops they do 
> >>now. But before I do, does anyone have any objections? Is anyone working 
> >>on  fancy 3D GUI for Freeldr, or can I go ahead with my changes? Note 
> >>nothing would change to the user, everything will look and act the exact 
> >>same way as it does now.
> >>
> >>Best regards,
> >>Alex Ionescu
> >>
> >>
> >>   
> >>
> >>      
> >>

[Brian Palmer]

Alex,

I don't remember seeing any "technical arguments" on why it should be
removed, only that you think it's "ugly". In fact, it seems like you like
the design of it because it abstracts and objectifies the low-level calls
and routes them to the required functions. IMO, abstraction is never a bad
thing.

Another reason why I don't think the code should be deleted is because it
provides a very good starting point for someone who wants to work on it. If
it were deleted and 6 months from now somebody wanted to do a GUI and looked
at the code and didn't see any of the GUI code they might just start all
over, not knowing that something existed before.

Casper, about your minimalism - ReactOS is built on
stubbed-out/unimplemented functions. They exist for a good reason - to
provide a starting point for someone who has time to and wants to do the
work to implement them. If obtaining minimalism was really the ultimate goal
here then we have lots of deleting to do. But that would be reckless.

I admit that the code isn't used currently. And I'm not opposed to
#ifdef'ing it out and not compiling it in. But I don't think we should
delete it and make everything call the TUI stuff directly. Would this be an
acceptable compromise for you?

-Brian

-----Original Message-----
From: ros-dev-bounces(a)reactos.org [mailto:[e-mail]] On
Behalf Of Alex Ionescu
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 12:38 AM
To: ReactOS Development List
Subject: Re: [ros-dev] Freeldr Question

Hi Brian,

That's exactly what I'm saying. Removing GUI Mode. It's never existed, 
and I doubt it will ever exist. Of course the Mach "Vtables" are useful 
and required to objectify low-level calls and route-them through 
different functions, but since GUI mode doesn't exist and never has 
existed it's only making things complicated for no reason.

You can't keep a feature in just because "mabe one day we'll need it". 
Nobody has touched it in 4, 5 years now? I've given technical arguments 
on why this UI abstraction is a bad idea, do you have any for the pro 
side, except that "one day it might be needed?". Because if we apply 
that to everything then we'll end up with a million wrappers.

I know you wrote most of Freeloader but you have to be willing to accept 
that you haven't had a lot of time to work on it (or else I assume you'd 
have coded GUI mode by now) and that it's time to allow people to 
improve it, if it's for the best, even if it doesn't match your grand 
ideas (trust me, I know it's hard).

Right now this abstraction is a technical mistake and offers no 
benefits. I've been wanting to remove it for a year now, but I gave it a 
chance to see if anyone was interested in using it; all I saw was people 
b*tching about how much GUI freeloder -already- has.

If a company wants a company logo one day, let them pay us for the 
feature and listen what, I'll code it myself. It's not hard to revert 
some code.

Anyways, I won't press the issue farther; I've stated my position.

Best regards,
Alex Ionescu

Brian Palmer wrote:

>  Alex,
>
> I don't see the point of what you are trying to do. IIRC, all of
> FreeLoader's code is organized like the UI stuff - you just make generic
> calls and the abstraction code handles the details. It's kind of like C++
> objects, only not. Take, for instance, FreeLoader's file system code, it is
> the exact same way. You just call generic routines like open, close, read,
> and write, and the file system code checks what file system it is and
> redirects the function call accordingly.
>
> Unless I don't understand what you are proposing, it sounds like you want 
to
>  just lump all the UI code into one huge file. And I
> think that is a step
> backward from the current design. I'll admit that checking the UI type on
> every call and calling the GUI code or the TUI code isn't the most 
efficient
>  way. And you could make it more efficient by setting up
> pointers to
> functions.
>
> But unless you are talking about removing the GUI code altogether (it isn't
> used currently) you will still have to do the checks to see if DrawBox(),
> etc. needs to go to the TUI code or the GUI code. Now don't get me wrong, I
> don't think removing the GUI code is the right thing to do. It is a very
> good starting point for someone to make a graphical menu system for
> FreeLoader. It would be very cool someday to be able to set a company logo
> or something as background image in the boot screen.
>
> I'd like to know more about what you are thinking...
>
> -Brian
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ros-dev-bounces(a)reactos.org [mailto:[e-mail]] On
> Behalf Of Alex Ionescu
> Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 9:17 PM
> To: ReactOS Development List
> Subject: Re: [ros-dev] Freeldr Question
>
> Hi Brian,
>
> No, it would keep the same GUI as it has now, since people seem 
> comfortable with it. (I did get a lot of requests for the NTLDR-like 
> interface and I might code one in as an optional interface since it's 
> only 30 lines of code, but that's beside the question at the moment).
>
> The reasoning is like I said earlier, tidying up the code and reducing 
> complexity in the software, which are very important parts of good 
> development and a scalable codebase.
>
> Best regards,
> Alex Ionescu
>
> Brian Palmer wrote:
>
>   
>
> >So are you going to implement a GUI for it then? Or what is the reasoning
> >behind this change?
> >
> >-Brian
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: ros-dev-bounces(a)reactos.org [mailto:[e-mail]] On
> >Behalf Of Alex Ionescu
> >Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 8:18 PM
> >To: ReactOS Development List
> >Subject: Re: [ros-dev] Freeldr Question
> >
> >Brian/Art
> >
> >I just want to make all drawings calls directly "Tui" instead of 
> >"Ui"->CheckMode->"Tui" and combine gui.c/tui.c/tuimenu.c and
> gui/ui/tui.h
> >Nothign else would change.
> >
> >Best regards,
> >Alex Ionescu
> >
> >Brian Palmer wrote:
> >
> > 
> >
> >    
> >
> >>Hi,
> >>
> >>So in what way do you propose changing it? How will it work after you're
> >>done?
> >>
> >>-Brian
> >>
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: ros-dev-bounces(a)reactos.org [mailto:[e-mail]] On
> >>Behalf Of Alex Ionescu
> >>Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 6:36 PM
> >>To: ReactOS Development List
> >>Subject: [ros-dev] Freeldr Question
> >>
> >>Hi,
> >>
> >>Freeldr currently contains an ugly (imo) wrapper around the GUI where 
> >>every drawing operation is supposed to have multiple "modes" (some fancy
>
> >>3d gizmo whizmo GUI and the normal text-mode interface). I would really 
> >>like to simply this interface and make the drawing operations much 
> >>simpler and just draw, instead of going through all the hoops they do 
> >>now. But before I do, does anyone have any objections? Is anyone working 
> >>on  fancy 3D GUI for Freeldr, or can I go ahead with my changes? Note 
> >>nothing would change to the user, everything will look and act the exact 
> >>same way as it does now.
> >>
> >>Best regards,
> >>Alex Ionescu
> >>
> >>
> >>   
> >>
> >>      
> >> 
_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[Casper Hornstrup]

>   Casper, about your minimalism - ReactOS is built on
>  stubbed-out/unimplemented functions. They exist for a good reason - to
>  provide a starting point for someone who has time to and wants to do the
>  work to implement them. If obtaining minimalism was really the ultimate goal
>  here then we have lots of deleting to do. But that would be reckless.
>   
Minimalism is not about removing needed code and the stubs are needed.
Without them, applications would crash at start up. Many applications (or
part of them) still run even if only some of the APIs are implemented. When
working on getting an application working on ReactOS, all references must also
be able to be resolved in order to get anywhere. This only applies to ReactOS
because it implements APIs which are used by already written applications. Had
it been stubs for new APIs used only by code we would write tomorrow then yes,
we should wait until tomorrow before adding them.

>   I admit that the code isn't used currently. And
> I'm not opposed to
>  #ifdef'ing it out and not compiling it in. But I don't think we should
>  delete it and make everything call the TUI stuff directly. Would this be an
>  acceptable compromise for you?
>  
>  -Brian 
It is still unused code until the day someone *might* use it (which may never
happen). How about documenting it in wiki instead? You can even write the
revision in which it was last present and any other useful comments about the
code.

Casper

[Casper Hornstrup]

If it isn't used, it should be removed to achieve minimalism. Subversion enables
us to get it back the day it need to be used.

I recently added a reference to Kevlin Henney's paper "Programmer's
Dozen" in wiki.
He mentions minimalism amongst other issues. It's a good read on how to write
maintainable source code.

http://www.reactos.org/wiki/index.php/Development_Techniques/Programmer%27s…

Casper

>   -----Original Message-----
>  From: ros-dev-bounces(a)reactos.org [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Brian
> Palmer
>  Sent: 17. november 2005 07:36
>  To: 'ReactOS Development List'
>  Subject: RE: [ros-dev] Freeldr Question
>  
>  Alex,
>  
>  I don't see the point of what you are trying to do. IIRC, all of
>  FreeLoader's code is organized like the UI stuff - you just make generic
>  calls and the abstraction code handles the details. It's kind of like C++
>  objects, only not. Take, for instance, FreeLoader's file system code, it is
>  the exact same way. You just call generic routines like open, close, read,
>  and write, and the file system code checks what file system it is and
>  redirects the function call accordingly.
>  
>  Unless I don't understand what you are proposing, it sounds like you want to
>  just lump all the UI code into one huge file. And I think that is a step
>  backward from the current design. I'll admit that checking the UI type on
>  every call and calling the GUI code or the TUI code isn't the most efficient
>  way. And you could make it more efficient by setting up pointers to
>  functions.
>  
>  But unless you are talking about removing the GUI code altogether (it isn't
>  used currently) you will still have to do the checks to see if DrawBox(),
>  etc. needs to go to the TUI code or the GUI code. Now don't get me wrong, I
>  don't think removing the GUI code is the right thing to do. It is a very
>  good starting point for someone to make a graphical menu system for
>  FreeLoader. It would be very cool someday to be able to set a company logo
>  or something as background image in the boot screen.
>  
>  I'd like to know more about what you are thinking...
>  
>  -Brian

[Alex Ionescu]

Hi Casper,

For once we agree! By the way, what do you think about the new 
development model being used at Microsoft and other places... something 
related to extreme programming, but I forgot the name...did you read 
about it.

Best regards,
Alex Ionescu

Casper Hornstrup wrote:

>  If it isn't used, it should be removed to achieve
> minimalism. Subversion enables
> us to get it back the day it need to be used.
>
> I recently added a reference to Kevlin Henney's paper "Programmer's
> Dozen" in wiki.
> He mentions minimalism amongst other issues. It's a good read on how to write
> maintainable source code.
>
> http://www.reactos.org/wiki/index.php/Development_Techniques/Programmer%27s…
>
> Casper
>
>   
>
> >  -----Original Message-----
> > From: ros-dev-bounces(a)reactos.org [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Brian
> > Palmer
> > Sent: 17. november 2005 07:36
> > To: 'ReactOS Development List'
> > Subject: RE: [ros-dev] Freeldr Question
> >
> > Alex,
> >
> > I don't see the point of what you are trying to do. IIRC, all of
> > FreeLoader's code is organized like the UI stuff - you just make generic
> > calls and the abstraction code handles the details. It's kind of like C++
> > objects, only not. Take, for instance, FreeLoader's file system code, it is
> > the exact same way. You just call generic routines like open, close, read,
> > and write, and the file system code checks what file system it is and
> > redirects the function call accordingly.
> >
> > Unless I don't understand what you are proposing, it sounds like you want to
> > just lump all the UI code into one huge file. And I think that is a step
> > backward from the current design. I'll admit that checking the UI type on
> > every call and calling the GUI code or the TUI code isn't the most efficient
> > way. And you could make it more efficient by setting up pointers to
> > functions.
> >
> > But unless you are talking about removing the GUI code altogether (it isn't
> > used currently) you will still have to do the checks to see if DrawBox(),
> > etc. needs to go to the TUI code or the GUI code. Now don't get me wrong, I
> > don't think removing the GUI code is the right thing to do. It is a very
> > good starting point for someone to make a graphical menu system for
> > FreeLoader. It would be very cool someday to be able to set a company logo
> > or something as background image in the boot screen.
> >
> > I'd like to know more about what you are thinking...
> >
> > -Brian
> >     
> >  
> _______________________________________________
> Ros-dev mailing list
> Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>
>   
>

[Casper Hornstrup]

I don't recall reading about any particular new Microsoft development model,
but if it's in the agile class then I'm sure I will like it ;-)

Casper

>   -----Original Message-----
>  From: ros-dev-bounces(a)reactos.org [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Alex
> Ionescu
>  Sent: 17. november 2005 09:26
>  To: ReactOS Development List
>  Subject: Re: [ros-dev] Freeldr Question
>  
>  Hi Casper,
>  
>  For once we agree! By the way, what do you think about the new
>  development model being used at Microsoft and other places... something
>  related to extreme programming, but I forgot the name...did you read
>  about it.
>  
>  Best regards,
>  Alex Ionescu
>

[Alex Ionescu]

Hi,
I just checked, it's called "Scrum". Yes it's agile, but I wanted to 
know how it differs from XP and if you thought it would be a good idea/etc.

Best regards,
Alex Ionescu
Casper Hornstrup wrote:

>  I don't recall reading about any particular new
> Microsoft development model,
> but if it's in the agile class then I'm sure I will like it ;-)
>
> Casper
>
>   
>

[Casper Hornstrup]

Yes, I know of Scrum. I haven't practised it though. If XP is about delivering the
right solid product, then Scrum is about
delivering the right product, on time and within budget (i.e. Scrum focuses on the
management part of the problem). A good aspect of
the agile methodologies is that you can pick and choose and use only the parts that works
for you (and ignore the rest).

Casper

>   -----Original Message-----
>  From: ros-dev-bounces(a)reactos.org [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Alex
> Ionescu
>  Sent: 17. november 2005 10:33
>  To: ReactOS Development List
>  Subject: Re: [ros-dev] Freeldr Question
>  
>  Hi,
>  I just checked, it's called "Scrum". Yes it's agile, but I wanted to
>  know how it differs from XP and if you thought it would be a good idea/etc.
>  
>  Best regards,
>  Alex Ionescu
>  Casper Hornstrup wrote:
>  
>  >I don't recall reading about any particular new Microsoft development model,
>  >but if it's in the agile class then I'm sure I will like it ;-)
>  >
>  >Casper