* have a dedicated "information hub" controller, which acts a receiver of "error log messages" on the UI-Bus
* let that controller in turn allocate an apropriate view on demand
The goal is to build a (in itself completely meaningless) ping-pong interaction
between the UI and Proc-Layer, for the purpose of driving the integration ahead.
The immediate challenge is how to create and place an apropriate "GuiComponentView",
i.e. a Tangible, which is connected to the UI-Bus with an predictable EntryID.
And the problem is to get that settled right now, without building the envisioned
generic framework for View allocation in the UI. When this is achieved,
it should be a rather small step to actually send those notifications over
the UI-Bus, which is basically implemented and ready by now.
right now this will just end up in the log, since not even the
notification display is implemented beyond the GuiNotification-facade.
Anyway, we get some kind of communication now for real, in the actual application
...because due of #211, we usually don't execute commands yet.
For now there is only the backdoor to prefix the command-ID with "test"
With this change, the TODO message appears now immediately after GUI start!
In the end, I decided against building a generic service here,
since it pretty much looks like a one-time problem.
Preferrably UI content will be pushed or pulled on demand,
rather than actively coding content from within the UI-Layer
...and while doing so, also re-check the state of the GTK toolkit initialisation.
Looks like we're still future-proof, while cunningly avoiding all this
Gnome-style "Application" blurb
I will abandon work on the ViewSpec DSL in current shape (everything fine with that)
and instead work on a general UI start-up and content population sequence.
From there, my intention is to return to the docks, the placement of views
and then finally to the TimelineView
This finishes the first round of design drafts in this area.
Right now it seems difficult to get any further, since most of
the actual view creation and management in the UI is not yet coded.
looks like I'm trapped with the choice between a convoluted API design
and an braindead and inefficient implementation. I am leaning towards the latter
looks like we're hitting a design mismatch here....
...and unfortunately I have to abandon this task now and concentrate
on preparation of my talk at LAC.2018 in June
it seems apropriate to move the base definition of gui::idi::Descriptor<VIEW>
into view-spec-dsl.hpp and only retain the actual DSL definitions in id-scheme.hpp
this is a (hopefully just temporary) workaround to deal with static initialisation
ordering problems. The original solution was cleaner from a code readability viewpoint,
however, when lib::Depend was used from static initialisation code, it could
be observed that the factory constructor was invoked after first use.
And while this did not interfer with the instance lifecycle management itself,
because the zero-initialisation of the instance (atomic) pointer did happen
beforehand, it would discard any special factory functions installed from such
a context (and this counts as bug for my taste).
seemingly this code was brittle: GCC-7 treats int64_t as long,
which leads to preferring the template specialisation over the
explicit version of the operator* -- which means the template
instantiation invokes itself.
The original goal for #1129 (ViewSpecDSL_test) is impossible to accomplish,
at least within our existing test framework. Thus I'll limit myself to coding
a clean-room integration test with purely synthetic DSL definitions and mock widgets
usually the ID is hard coded, but when re-throwing errors, it might be
from "somewhere else", which means it is possibly a NULL ptr.
In those cases we fall back to the cannonical ID of the error class.
My understanding is that in the standard use case, we precisely know what to expect
and just go ahead and perform the conversion. Thus it is pointless to introduce
fine grained distinctions. When the access fails, this always indicates some broken
application logic, and just raises an error.
With this solution, somewhere deep down within the implementation
the knowledge about the actual result type would be encoded into
the embedded VTable within a lib::variant. At interface level,
ther will be a double dispatch based on that result type
and the desired result type, leading either to a successful
access or an error response.
Problem is, we can not even compile the conversion in the "other branch".
Thus we need to find some way to pick the suitable branch at compile time.
Quite similar to the solution found for binding Rec<GenNode> onto a typed Tuple
Basically the mocking mechanism just switches the configuration
and then waits for the service to be accessed in order to cause acutual
instantiation of the mock service implementation. But sometimes we want
to prepare and rig the mock instance prior to the first invocation;
in such cases it can be handy just to trigger the lazy creating process
...reduce immediate coupling, since we do not really now what actions ElementAccess
will actually perform, and this is likely to remain this way for some time.
So just let it sit there are an on-demand dependency.
Moreover, create an (empty placeholder) implementation within WindowLocator.
So everything is set now for the actual implementation to be filled in
