On Thu, 2004-09-23 at 18:55 -0500, Federico Mena Quintero wrote: > On Wed, 2004-09-22 at 17:19 -0400, Havoc Pennington wrote: > > > Have you given some thought to the pros and cons of the two obvious > > alternate approaches: > > > > 1. allow wholesale replacement of the file chooser without modifying > > gtk (also enables the "we want one that looks just like windows" > > crowd) > > That was the original idea behind making GtkFileChooser an abstract > interface ;) > > How do we deal with GtkFileChooserDialog, however? That one *is* a > GtkDialog that embeds a GtkFileChooserWidget, which in turn is a bin > that contains an opaque GtkFileChooserDefault implementation. > > I guess most apps use GtkFileChooserDialog, and they wouldn't be happy > about changing their code to use some other object which happens to > implement the GtkFileChooser interface. They also want a GtkDialog-like > interface to do gtk_dialog_run() and such. The whole reason that GtkFileChooserWidget is a bin is to allow alternate file chooser implementations to be dropped in without modifying the publically exposed type or constructor. The default implementation is a lot of code though, so reimplementing it isn't all that appealing. Some of the pieces could presumably be exported. Regards, Owen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part