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: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 15:40:46 +0000
On Sun, 2006-12-10 at 14:21 +0100, Tim Janik wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Dec 2006, Damon Chaplin wrote:
> > On Fri, 2006-12-08 at 18:36 +0100, Tim Janik wrote:
> >> 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);
> > I think the terms "appoint" and "prerequisite" are a bit confusing.
> > I'd prefer the simpler:
> > g_factory_create (GType type);
> > g_factory_override_type (GType original_type,
> > GType override_type);
> well, "prerequisite" is consistent with established naming in the type system,
Yes, but it is used in a slightly different sense. Saying something is a
prerequisite of something else (implying some sort of dependency) is
easy to understand.
But "g_factory_create (GType prerequisite_type)" isn't implying any
dependency, so I personally find it a bit confusing. Whereas I can
understand the simple "g_factory_create (GType type);" very easily.
> and "override" doesn't really seem appropriate if prerequisite_type is a
> non-instantiale interface type, and implementation_type is an instance type
> which happens to implement the interface type.
Yes, that's true.
> any other suggestions for replacing "appoint"?
g_factory_set_implementation (GType type,
] [Thread Prev