Re: Pluggable widget types and implementations
- From: Damon Chaplin <damon karuna uklinux net>
- To: Tim Janik <timj imendio com>
- Cc: Gtk+ Developers <gtk-devel-list gnome org>
- Subject: Re: Pluggable widget types and implementations
- Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2006 14:36:02 +0000
On Fri, 2006-12-08 at 13:13 +0100, Tim Janik wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Dec 2006, Damon Chaplin wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2006-11-28 at 14:53 +0100, Tim Janik wrote:
> >> Hey all,
> >>
> >> this is a proposal for allowing pluggable widget types and implementations,
> >> assorted bug report: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=356864
> >
> > How about a sort of widget/object factory?
> >
> > So you'd set the default implementation for a type:
> > gtk_object_factory_set_default_implementation (factory,
> > GTK_TYPE_LABEL,
> > MY_CUSTOM_LABEL_TYPE);
> >
> > And then in the widget/object xxx_new() functions instead of calling
> > g_object_new() they call:
> > gtk_object_factory_create (factory, GTK_TYPE_LABEL, ...);
>
> that sounds much like the alternative GFactory i suggested in
> another reply:
> http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gtk-devel-list/2006-November/msg00133.html
Yes, I missed half of the discussion somehow.
> > Applications could then use different sets of widgets for different
> > parts of the interface, just by switching the default factory:
> > gtk_set_default_object_factory (factory);
>
> the only differences i see are that you didn't introduce the factory at
> GLib level, and that you seem to advocate multiple factories.
> i'm not quite sure why though, can you give more concrete examples on
> why i would want to switch factories at all?
I don't have any specific examples. I just thought using a factory was a
more flexible approach - better than adding XXX_appoint_type() functions
for each widget.
Damon
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]