Re: [anjuta-devel] new project manager UI

[Sébastien Granjoux <seb sfo free fr>]

Hi Abderrahim,

Le 30/01/2011 21:13, Abderrahim Kitouni a écrit :
> I wanted to test the new (final) API for a project backend, so I ported
> a (half-finished) BuilDj backend I had floating around over from the old
> API, and I found a problem with the project manager: it doesn't show
> targets that aren't in a group.
>
> Indeed, looking at the code shows that it looks only for groups and
> modules in the children of the root node (and for some other things in
> groups etc.), and adding the same code for targets shows them without
> problems. IMO, it shouldn't restrict what is shown based on its type. It
> should be possible to write a, say, ant project backend and start using
> it without anjuta knowing anything about it (backends that anjuta knows
> about would have nicer icons, etc. but others should work as well). What
> do you think?

Yes, I'm completely agree. It's like this for historical reason only, 
the code of the project manager needs quite a lots of cleaning.


> btw, I didn't find what to put in the is_loaded method, wouldn't it make
> more sense if it was in the project manager?

I can imagine that, in the future, the project manager could load 
several projects. If we add this function in the project manager it will 
mean that we could get this only for the current project or we need to 
pass a pointer on the project.

Anyway, I'm not against this change. The project manager already knows 
if the project is loaded so it's possible to do it here and it makes 
sense to avoid having this code in each backend.

So, If you really think it's better we can change it. Unless someone 
finds other reasons to keep it in the project backend plugin.


> As the project manager
> already keeps track of what is loaded, I think it doesn't add much if
> the project backend also does it

If we put it in the project manager, I think it's better to remove it 
from the project backend to avoid confusion.


> (I know I'm the one who asked for this
> API and I didn't complain about it at the time, but since I bumped into
> it recently I thought I would ask).

No problem, some issues are difficult to find without really using the code.

Regards,

Sébastien