bonobo questions ??

[Nat Friedman <nat nat org>]

Hello Mathieu,

    Wow, you found some good nitpicks.

Mlacage@aol.com writes:
 > 
 > 1) i cannot figure out what the GNOME::ClientSite::queue_resize and the 
 > GNOME::View::activate functions are used for. request_resize is allready 
 > present in GNOME::ViewFrame to allow a view to request a resize from the 
 > parent and View::activate is just equivalent to do_verb (primary_activate ) ? 
 > no ?

    Good point about queue_resize.  That's an artifact from when
Miguel was smoking was stuff he found growing under his bed.  I've
removed it.

    We no longer user verbs for activation, though.  You might be
looking at an old version of Bonobo if that's what you're seeing.

 > 2) if we could get rid of GNOME::ViewFrame::request_resize, clients would 
 > just need to call GNOME::ClientSite::queue_resize which would loop through 
 > its Views and execute GNOME::View::size_request then 
 > GNOME::View::size_allocate (or allocate_size, i don't remember). I understand 
 > that this may introduce some overhead for little interface
simplification. 

    Well, the problem is that each view can have a separate size.
This is one of the only ways in which views can differ from each other.

 > but i guess the ClientSite could maintain for each View its size and compare 
 > these sizes with those returned frmo GNOME::View::request_size. That way, 
 > only one View would be really resized.
 > Is this grossly wrong ?

    The problem here is that you seem to be misunderstanding the role
of the Client Site.  ClientSites are supposed to be the container-side
point-of-contact for the Embeddable.  Therefore, they should only
handle document-global containee-to-container communications.  The
ViewFrame, on the other hand, is intended to do view-specific
containee-to-container communications, and should therefore handle
things like resizing and menu/toolbar merging.

 > Still delving into bonobo interfaces...

    Please do be sure to check out the documentation in bonobo/doc if
you haven't already.

 > BTW: i am happy to anounce that DDJ (Dr Dobbs Journal: http://www.ddj.com) 
 > accepted the idea of an upcomming article on Bonobo. It should be published 
 > for the July issue if everything happens well.

    They did?  Can we see this article?

Cheers,
Nat