Re: Goals for 0.3.4

["John Stowers" <john stowers gmail com>]

On 8/22/07, John Carr <john carr unrouted co uk> wrote:

>> >  * Add Sync() and Refresh() to Conduit objects. We still need the
>> shared
>> > sync_manager approach because of gtk signal foo
>>
>> The first bit of this should be done. I would like to move the signals
>> on
>> to the Conduit object too if no one objects? I would probably strip them
>> off the *Worker classes and emit through the Conduit class directly, if
>> that makes sense!
>>
>> nzjrs, if you don't grok what i'm thinking i could do the work and post
>> a
>> patch?
>
> I know what you mean. I believe I have already done this in DBus. See the
> DBus Conduit proxy object for how its done (or at least one possible
> implementation)
>

I was thinking more like the attached... Note I haven't updated
Synchronization.py, Conduit.py or Canvas.py yet, just wanted to give you
an idea before I wasted my time :-).. The lambda's I can break out, but
the main point here is reducing the places where we touch sync_manager.

Lambdas are gross to read but the idea is sound. keep the _on_sync_foo functions and connect to them. Sure they will (now) be simple one liners, but thats not necessarily bad.

John

Make sense? sync_manager is really backend utility code for the Model to
run inside a thread, so i'm trying to hide it from the View.

Makes sense I guess. Remember things like Main.py connect to the sync_started and finished signals ob both the dbus and gui sync manager so that we can animate the progress icon.

John

John
_______________________________________________
Conduit-list mailing list
Conduit-list gnome org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/conduit-list