Re: woo

[Miguel de Icaza <miguel gnu org>]

> I am somewhat inclined to think that verbs should be reserved for
> popup-menu verb items [1], and that we should provide a special
> GNOME::View method for activation and deactivation.

Sounds good to me.  I have also been thinking about this.

Either that or we need to provide simple wrappers for this, to avoid
this:

> 	  /* This could be done with a GNOME::View method, too. */
> 	  GNOME_View_do_verb (view, "bonobo_view_inplace_activate", &ev);

It would be nice to have:

   gnome_view_activate (view);

Just an idea.


> 	  I am also currently using a double-click on the
> GnomeViewFrame's wrapper to trigger in-place activation.  This is done
> in a somewhat hackneyed way right now.  With your permission, I'd like
> to make a double-click on the wrapper trigger a GnomeViewFarme signal
> emission, which an application can capture and deal with as
> appropriate.

Sounds like a good idea.  I understand that this would just emit a
signal and the user would have to do the rest of the work right?

This is some sort of "Policy support" in the code.  If we do this,
wouldn't it make more sense to just have a flag in the thing to do
this on its own?

gnome_view_frame_set_auto_activate_on_double_click()?

> 	  In the above code, deactive_view() and activate_view() could
> potentially be made GnomeViewFrame methods.  In fact, I think it would
> be a good idea.
> 
> 	  So, Migatron, comments?

I agree with your analysis.

> [1] Incidentally, I have added the dual-string support for verbs on my
> local copy; one for the translated copy and one for the untranslated
> "key" copy.  I don't like the idea of using a number as a verb ID at
> all.

Ok, makes sense.  When I was reading your code I was thinking "Jesus,
we have to put back the Verb dualness code in there".  Thanks for
taking care of this.

Miguel.