Re: GtkPlug / GtkSocket ...

[Michael Meeks <michael ximian com>]

Hi Owen,

On 31 Oct 2001, Owen Taylor wrote:
> Would it from an API standpoint to support:
>
>  gtk_container_add (GTK_CONTAINER (socket), plug);

        This would be extremely ideal from my perspective.

> ? I haven't really explored what it would take to implement this, but
> my guess is that would be only a few lines of changes.

        I assume from IRC you now think it'd be quite a lot of work.

> On the other hand, I don't quite understand why you should be seeing
> this sort of "inelegance", if you order things correctly.

        Well - inelegance / inefficiency; we have to perform all the
sizing logic at least twice, and possibly more times, depending on how we
realize our (perhaps several) plug/sockets.

> Are you using the old gtk_plug_new(), or the new preferred
> gtk_plug_new (0); gtk_socket_add_id (gtk_plug_get_id (plug))?

        No - I was unaware that this was the preferred behavior, I'll
re-architect the Control / ControlFrame mechanism to do it this way.

        So - I think in Bonobo I will satisfy myself with undoing the
code I put in to pre-empt the gtk_container_add - although I still feel
that supporting this is the best solution from the in-proc efficiency
angle. I will also continue to override the sizing logic for BonoboSocket
to go via. CORBA until we're realized;

> Clearing the UNREALIZED flag at the beginning of
> gtk_socket_unrealize(); if that tests to fix the problem, please
> commit the fix.

        Committed that fix - I'm keeping mine in place so it'll work with
the release for now.

        Regards,

                Michael.

-- 
 mmeeks gnu org  <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot