Re: [g-a-devel] About the signal "text-update"
- From: Piñeiro <apinheiro igalia com>
- To: gnome-accessibility-devel gnome org
- Subject: Re: [g-a-devel] About the signal "text-update"
- Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 17:08:37 +0200
On 08/19/2013 04:18 PM, Alexander Surkov wrote:
I think I'm fine if we had text-inserted/removed only. At least it
seems I don't have an objection to keep it alive.
Alex.
Thanks for the clarification. FWIW, I have just removed 'text-update',
and I'm working on next atk release. ATK 2.9.4 will not include that signal.
So I think that we can conclude that this thread is over.
Again, thanks for all the feedback (to Alex and to everyone)
Best regards
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Piñeiro <apinheiro igalia com> wrote:
On 08/13/2013 08:10 PM, Alexander Surkov wrote:
In the same way, not sure if update-text would be enough. Right now the
signal has three parameters. And as they were not documented (sigh) I
assume that is something like this:
update-text
* arg1: offset where the text change
* arg2: size
* arg3: no idea (anyone?)
* arg4: previous text
But for example, AFAIK, one of the things that Orca does is expose the
text removed when the user press backspace. I see that easily supported
with 'text-remove'. How that could be supported with 'text-updated'?
Joanmarie, any idea?
As Joanie said, text updated event includes an offset, removed and
inserted texts. If it's single insertion then removed text is empty
and vise versa.
Ok, now I start to understand things. One of the reasons I didn't know
how that signal was intended to use is because the parameters of that
signal are defined with the following types:
4, G_TYPE_INT, G_TYPE_INT, G_TYPE_INT, G_TYPE_STRING
So taking into account your comment, there are was an error when the
update-text was created. And the arguments should be:
* arg1 (int): offset for the change
* arg2 (int): size of removed text
* arg3 (string): removed text
* arg4 (int): size of added text
* arg5 (string): added text
Or if we have null terminated strings, we could forget the size of
removed/added texts, and just have three arguments.
Taking into account that the signal is not used anywhere, it shouldn't
be a problem to fix the wrong arguments (Note: we will not break ABI, as
we wisely didn't add a default virtual handler for that signal).
It's about less events and
describes better what the user does. So if the user selected the text
and typed new text then it's a case for text_update event.
But doesn't cover too well the use case I mentioned before. And if in
the end we keep needing 'text-insert' and 'text-remove', having
'text-update' seems like an overkill. And confusing, as implementors
would need to decide when use one or the other.
We never
implemented it in Firefox because AT didn't implemented it, we can't
proceed it without AT since it's not backward compatible approach.
Well, I thought that was the opposite. First atk+at-spi give the
support, implementors use them, and at last AT can start to use it ;) In
any case, I prefer to talk first about the meaning and use case of that
signal before going to how the AT could use it.
It seems the world lives just fine without text_udpated events so you
might want to introduce text_inserted/text_removed only in ATK and
that will be a working approach.
Well, text-inserted/text-removed are already introduced at ATK, and used
at at-spi. As you say things seems to work fine right now. So for the
same "fix update-text signal would not be a big deal" I mentioned
before, I'm also tempted to just remove that signal (without
deprecation) because what we have now works, and is what is being used.
IMHO, keeping all the three can be a source of confusion.
Anyone against removing 'text-update' signal?
Again, thanks for the feedback
BR
--
Alejandro Piñeiro Iglesias
--
Alejandro Piñeiro Iglesias
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]