Re: Pluggable widget types and implementations

On Fri, 8 Dec 2006, Tristan Van Berkom wrote:

On Fri, 2006-12-08 at 17:49 +0100, Tim Janik wrote:
This abstraction would ensure that there is no confusion at the GType
level, if we start substituting types at the GType level then types
will inevidably be substituted underneath unsuspecting code, that
doesnt sound safe to me at all,

we will not do that. never ever. i've adressed that in another
email already:
i.e. we guarantee that:
holds, you may assert that in your code. we will not break that guarantee.

let me use your words: we will not substitute types at the GType level.

I see, thank you very much for your patience in describing this,
for my concerns:
 a.) G_TYPE_FROM_INSTANCE(g_object_new(TYPE_FOO)/foo_new()) == TYPE_FOO

these are actually two cases, g_object_new and foo_new.
if you read my original proposal again:
you will see that i was suggesting that we change all gtk_*_new() functions
(note, this affects only GTK functions) to return instances *conforming*
to the requested widget types. that's what the pluggable widget types for
Gtk+ is all about. so for the GTK namespace, only these will hold:

  GTK_IS_FOO (gtk_foo_new())

 b.) IS_FOO (g_factory_create (TYPE_FOO))

this should hold. yes.

so for Gtk+, the idea is to change internals like this:

 gtk_foo_new (void)
-  return g_object_new (GTK_TYPE_FOO, NULL);
+  return g_factory_create (GTK_TYPE_FOO, NULL);

Knowing that the above assertions hold, completely settles my concern.

hope your concerns are at least 66.6% settled now ;)



[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]