Subject: Re: XP code (take 2)
From: Dom Lachowicz (cinamod@hotmail.com)
Date: Tue Feb 13 2001 - 10:17:29 CST
>event if functionnally it is XP. So why not, for each XP class that is
>abstract to provide platform FE don't we declare a static method (for
>example XAP_Class::constructPlatformObject()) that we will implement in the
>platform code (ie we provide declaration un XP code and implementation in
>FE
>code) thus allowing to instantiate this object from XP code. This have been
>made for some, but not for all. Or I am missing something.
We already have this, but it needs to be propegated up a layer for it to be
of use to us. It's the static_constructor() method that every FE dialog has,
but it doesn't exist as a prototype in the XP base dialog. So if we make the
declaration of this method one level higher and make it a pure virtual
function (virtual fun() = 0;) we should be able to do this.
My only concern is how this might affect the Gnome build, since in a lot of
cases, there would be GTK_Dialog::static_constructor() lying in front of the
GNOME_Dialog::static_constructor()
Let me say this now: Implementing our own "widget set" is a *very bad* idea.
If you're thinking about doing this, port us to wxWindows instead. However,
making our current design easier to use XP is a worthwhile cause, esp. if we
can cut down on code duplication and dialog creation time. Please note the
crucial difference.
Wouldn't anyone like to go tackle a few bugs in bugzilla or work on some of
our performance issues instead?
Dom
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Tue Feb 13 2001 - 10:17:32 CST