up to now this happened from the GuiRunner, which was a rather bad idea
- it can throw and thus interfer with the startup process
- the GuiNotification can not sensibly be *implemented* just backed
by the GuiRunner. While CoreService offers access to the necessary
implementation facilities to do so
so the true reason is an inner contradiction in the design
- I want it to be completely self similar
- but the connection to CoreService does not conform
- and I do not want to hard code CoreService into the Nexus classdefinition
So we treat CoreService as uplink für Nexus and Nexus as uplink for CoreService,
with the obvious consequences that we're f**ed at init and shutdown.
And since I want to retain the overall design, I resort to implement
a short circuit detector, which suppresses circular deregistration calls
Decision was made to use the CoreService as PImpl to organise
all those technical aspects of running the backbone. Thus,
the Nexus (UI-Bus hub) becomes part of CoreService
this is a tricky problem and a tough decision.
After quite some pondering I choose to enforce mandatory fields
through the ctor, and not to allow myself cheating my way around it
Damn sideeffect of the suppport for move-only types: since we're
moving our binding now into place /after/ construction, in some cases
the end() iterator (embedded in RangeIter) becomes invalid. Indeed this
was always broken, but didn't hurt, as long as we only used vectors.
Solution: use a dedicated init() hook, which needs to be invoked
*after* the TreeMutator has been constructed and moved into the final
location in the stack buffer.
...this is the first attempt to integrate the Diff-Framework into (mock) UI code.
Right now there is a conceptual problem with the representation of attributes;
I tend to reject idea of binding to an "attribute map"
the generic typing to DiffMutatble does not make much sense,
since the desired implementation within gui::ctrl::Nexus
is bound to work on Tangibles only, since that is what
the UI-Bus stores in the routing table
based on the previous experiments, this adds a fake operation
and a definition frame to hook this operation as pseudo Proc-Layer command
WIP: the invocation itself is not yet implemented.
We need to build a custom invocation pattern for that,
in order to be able to capture the instance-ID of the command
on invocation
NOTE: also, because of #989, we can not bind a time value for this test
I worked under the erroneous assumption, that Doxygen
will use its internal entity-IDs as the link-IDs when
generating mardown-links. Yes, this seemed logical and
this would be the way I'd implement it....
But seemingly, Doxygen is not so consistent when it
comes to questions of syntax. The same holds true for
markdown, which lacking a coherent definition anyway.
Another problem is that Doxygen's auto-link generation
frequently fails, for reasons not yet clear to me.
Sometimes it seems to be necessary to give it a nudge
by including the \ref command. While I'm not willing
to go into focussed invstigation of Doxygen syntax
right now, at least I've done a search-and-replace
to remove the malformed links I've written the
last days
the initial draft of this concept is in place now, and
the first round of unit tests pass. I've got some understanding
of the purpose of the interactions and involved elements
and I'm confident this design is evolving in a sane way.
Note: extensive documentation is in the TiddlyWiki,
here I've just pasted and reworded some paragraphs from there
and integrated them into the Doxygen docs
at the point when we're connecting a new node to the UI-Bus,
the new node's BusTerm is not yet initialised, since we need
the uplink connection we're about to create for setting up
this BusTerm.
Consequently, the new nodes's ID is not yet initialised,
so we need to pass this endpoint-ID explicitly to the
registration function.
since, by definition, the Nexus is "the" up-link,
all we need is clever overriding of the relevant
handling functions, so the nexus will care for the routing,
while the CoreService cares for command and presentation
state handling
...providing the standard implementation of UI-Bus connectivity.
It seems reasonable to place all of the UI-Bus implementation into
a single translation unit
what you see here now is just the tip of the icebearg...
If we follow this route, the Lumiera UI will become way more
elaborate and responsive than average desktop applications
over time, a specific Lumiera code writing style has emerged.
The GUI, as it stood, used somewhat different conventions,
which now have been aligned to the common standard.
Basically we use GNU style, with some adjustments for OO-programming,
we prefer CamelCase, and write TypeNames uppercase, variableNames lowercase
This is the first step towards a generic backbone to connect
any GUI elements to the session within Proc-Layer.
It is based on a spefic understanding of Model-View-Controller,
which turns the Model-Controller interactions into messages.
