Re: Pluggable widget types and implementations

Tim Janik wrote:
On Sat, 9 Dec 2006, Bill Haneman wrote:

Hi All;

As I understand it, the proposal below would probably break gail
unless/until we roll it into gtk+.

can you please elaborate why this should be the case?
basically, the proprosal is about exchanging widget types.
My understanding is that the pluggable type system would allow for alternate implementations for a given GType.

If that is the case, then the implementation code for, say, a GtkTreeView might differ in a 'pluggable' environment from the stock gtk+ implementation treeview code. If this is the case, the gail code will almost surely break; this is because, while gail uses public gtk+ API for its support (thus the API would be the same in a pluggable environment), gail does currently depend on implementation/behavior details of stock gtk+ widgets (i.e. order and type of children, perhaps signal emission order, etc.).
as long
as widgets are supported by gail, nothing should break. and if they
aren't, we're simply talking about accessibility TODOs and the
pluggability doesn't introduce any *new* breakage.

accesibility and pluggability are simply orthogonal.
Not sure I agree. But then, perhaps I have the wrong concept of what is actually intended by a 'pluggable' type system. If so, please feel free to enlighten me (on or off-list).




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