While these function may seem superficially plausible,
I more and more come to the conclusion that offering such
function as ''basic building blocks'' is in itself an
ill-guided approach to handling of time entities.
Time is neither „just a number“ — nor does it „contain“ hours, minutes and seconds.
It is possible to ''represent'' it through a **time-code**, which incurs
a quantisation step and implies a reference grid.
Thus Lumiera ''should not offer'' a »basic time handling library«.
Doing so would be just an invitation to bypass proper time handling
and avoid the use of more demanding but also more adequate mental concepts.
So the next step will be to remove functions not deemed adequate, and
better directly inline the respective modulus based computations.
Other functions can be integrated into the respective implementation
translation units for time quantisation and timecode representation.
The investigation for #1279 leads to the following conclusions
- the features and the design of our custom thread-wrapper
almost entirely matches the design chosen meanwhile by the C++ committee
- the implementation provided by the standard library however uses
modern techniques (especially Atomics) and is more precisely worked out
than our custom implementation was.
- we do not need an *active* threadpool with work-assignment,
rather we'll use *active* workers and a *passive* pool,
which was easy to implement based on C++17 features
==> decision to drop our POSIX based custom implementation
and to retrofit the Thread-wrapper as a drop-in replacement
+++ start this refactoring by moving code into the Library
+++ create a copy of the Threadwrapper-code to build and test
the refactorings while the application itself still uses
existing code, until the transition is complete
This ZoomWindow_test highlights again the question about the intended usage
of the Lumiera time entities. In which way do we want to perform time calculations,
and under which circumstances is it adequate to perform arithmetic on
raw time values?
These questions made me think about rather far reaching concerns regarding
subsidiarity and implicit or explicit usage context. Basically I could
reconfirm the design choices taken some years ago -- while I must admit
that the project is headed towards a way larger scale and more loose
coupling of the parts, than I could imagine several years ago, at the
time when the design started...
As a side note: we can not avoid that some knowledge about the time implementation
leaks out from the support lib; time codes themselves are tightly coupled
to the usage scenario within the session and can not be used as means
for implementing UI concerns. And the more generic time frameworks,
like std::chrono (as much as it is desirable to have some integration here)
will not be of any help for most of our specific usage patterns.
The reason is, for film editing we do not have a global time scale,
rather the truth is when the film starts....
For context: The »Advice System« was coined a long time ago, in 2010,
based on the vague impression that it might be useful for that kind of application
we are about to build here. And, as can be expected, none of the usage situations
envisioned at that time was brought to bear. Non the less, the facility came in
handy at times, precisely because it is cross-cutting and allows to pass
information without imposing any systematic relationship between the
communication partners.
And now we've got again such a situation.
The global style manager in the UI has to build a virtual CSS path,
which is needed by drawing code somewhere deep down, and we absolutely
do not want to pass a reference to the style manager over 20 recursive calls.
The alternatives would be
(1) to turn the style manager into a public service
(2) to have a static access function somewhere
(3) to use a global variable.
For rationale, (1) would be overblown, because we do not actually request
a service to do work for us, rather we need some global piece of information.
(2) would be equivalent to (1), just more confusing. And (3) is basically
what the Advice system does, with the added benefit of a clear-cut service
access point and a well defined lifecycle.
This changeset adds the ability to check if actual Advice has been published,
which allows us to invoke the (possibly expensive) GTK path building and
style context building code only once.
the (trivial) implementation turned out to be correct as written,
but it was (again) damn challenging to get the mulithreaded chaotic
test fixture and especially the lambda captures to work correct.
without that check, in theory our test runner will tolerate
a non-zero return value, like throwing or failing an assert,
which is not what we want....
guess these happenend to get in by forgetting to
add this check when switching a test from PLANNED to TEST
- the tests covering threadind support and object monitors
are located in the backend test-library and linked against liblumierabackend.so
- some fundamental facilities of proc-layer moved from the library tree
into the basic components tree, since *testing* them requires at least
to link against liblumieracommon.so
