From xemacs-m  Mon Mar 17 16:37:25 1997
Received: from crystal.WonderWorks.COM (crystal.WonderWorks.com [192.203.206.1])
	by xemacs.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA29855
	for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 16:37:23 -0600 (CST)
Received: by crystal.WonderWorks.COM 
	id QQchhy17708; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 17:37:22 -0500 (EST)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 17:37:22 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <QQchhy17708.199703172237@crystal.WonderWorks.COM>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Kyle Jones <kyle_jones@wonderworks.com>
To: xemacs-beta@xemacs.org
Subject: Re: XEmacs needs a GUI toolkit interface. 
In-Reply-To: <199703172230.RAA06459@anthem.CNRI.Reston.Va.US>
References: <9049.858636827@kocrsw12>
	<199703172230.RAA06459@anthem.CNRI.Reston.Va.US>
X-Mailer: VM 6.20 under 19.15 XEmacs Lucid (beta99)
X-Face: /cA45WHG7jWq>(O3&Z57Y<"WsX5ddc,4c#w0F*zrV#=M
        0@~@,s;b,aMtR5Sqs"+nU.z^CSFQ9t`z2>W,S,]:[+2^
        Nbf6v4g>!&,7R4Ot4Wg{&tm=WX7P["9%a)_da48-^tGy
        ,qz]Z,Zz\{E.,]'EO+F)@$KtF&V

Barry A. Warsaw writes:
 > What you could do with minimal pain (and all in elisp), would
 > be to define an interface at the lisp level, and run all the Tk
 > goop in a subprocess.  This has the advantage that you could
 > cobble the thing together with no changes to XEmacs at the C
 > level.  I bet it would be pretty useful too.  The disadvantage
 > is that the abstraction might not be right, and it would most
 > likely be slower.  But you wouldn't have pesky problems like
 > merging event loops and such.

Yes.  Consider, XEmacs already puts bits on the screen by talking
to another process: the X server.  Using a subprocess need not be
slow, if you don't put too much gup into the protocol.

