Re: Pluggable widget types and implementations

[Tim Janik <timj imendio com>]

On Fri, 8 Dec 2006, Damon Chaplin wrote:

> On Fri, 2006-12-08 at 13:13 +0100, Tim Janik wrote:

> > > 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.

ok thanks for the input. upon reflection, using a factory API simplifies
the implementation and also API on the Gtk+ side, so it's probably the
better idea.

i'm still interested in hearing use cases for multiple factories though,
so if anyone has arguments for allowing multiple GFactory* handles instead
of just two "singleton" functions:

  /* craete instance conforming to prerequisite_type */
  g_factory_create (GType prerequisite_type);

  /* appoint an implementaiton_type for a prerequisite_type */
  g_factory_appoint_type (GType prerequisite_type,
                          GType implementation_type);


please speak up.

> Damon

---
ciaoTJ