Re: New gnome-db-control: suggestion

[Rodrigo Moya <rodrigo linuxave net>]

Vivien Malerba wrote:
> 
> On mar, 16 mai 2000, you wrote:
> > Vivien Malerba wrote:
> > >
> > > I just wrote about the new gnome-db-control, about the new properties
> > > framework. The problem I have is that my controls need to be asked whenever a
> > > client is about to get a property (because it needs to compute it by acessing
> > > the Postgres DB, etc). The solution that I see is in the function
> > > get_control_prop() to emit a signal, say "get_property", BEFORE using the
> > > BONOBO_ARG_SET() macros. I'll make the modification soon if it is OK.
> > >
> > I think it's not needed, that's why I didn't add it. Because the
> > GnomeDbControl widget already manages this. It's got a GList of all the
> > properties, and when you use gnome_db_control_set_property, it adds it
> > to both the GList and the BonoboPropertyBag. But anyway, as you've
> > already added it, let's keep it.
> 
> Yes, I saw that, but for the components I have built, it is time consuming
> (==connection to the Postgres backend) to update the values of each property (in
> case someone want to read them) each time something is modified in the widget.
> So I prefer to get a signal telling the widget to set the value of a property
> which is going to be read. This is why I implemented the "get-property" (some
> widgets can ignore that signal safely as long as they keep their property's
> values up to date all the time).
> 
> I also added a pointer to the allocated value when a property is set (because
> otherwise in the set_property callback function I had to use the get_property
> to get the new value, and because it called my get_property callback, I could
> not retreive the right new value).
> 
Ok, I see, I wasn't sure if it was needed, but ok, now it's there!

> >
> > I was testing the gda-components-browser component (in gda-components)
> > with glade (the CVS version which contains support for BonoboControl),
> > and it worked great, although I'm not very sureif you're right with the
> > need or not of this property.
> 
> I have not tested glade yet, but of which property are you thinking?
> 
Sorry, I meant signal, not property!