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
...problem is, I actually don't know much about what kinds of markers
we'll get, and how we handle them. Thus introducing a marker kind
is just a wild guess, in order to get *any* tangible attribute
Phew, convoluted.
And I was doubtful that we need to support multiple typed child collection
Well, we get three such collections already in the first real world example...
...it occurred to me that very likely a casual reader of the code
will encounter here the first instance of such a diff binding function.
I am well aware this looks intimidating (and it is a tricky technical detail)
Even more so, if what you expect is just some access to a shared data model,
you might be completely puzzled by this code and nor recognise its importance.
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
it occurred to me that effectively we abandoned the use of
a business facade and proxy model in the UI. The connection
becomes entirely message based now.
To put that into context, the originally intended architecture
never came to life. The UI development stalled before this could
happen; possibly it was also hampered by the "impedance mismatch"
between our intentions in the core and such a classical, model centric
architecture. Joel several times complained that he felt blocked; but
I did not really understand this issue. Only recently, when I came to
adapting the timeline display to GTK-3, I realised the model centric
approach can not possibly work with such an open model as intended
in our case. It would lead to endless cascades of introspection.
...shows again why its not adwisable to use wildcard namespace include.
Well, the old timeline code is going away soon, and for the rewritten new one,
we'll learn from such structural problems
these are just empty class files, but writing a basic description
for each made me flesh out a lot of organisational aspects of what
I am about to build now
bottom line
- seems we need to do that manually
- must wait until in the on_draw() callback
- use Container::foreach() to visit all child widgets
- Layout::set_size()
I am still suspicious the cleanup mechanism for child widgets works as expected...
But right now, we can't verify that, since on shutdown we get an assertion failure
from ld.so "dl-close.c: 762: _dl_close: Assertion `map->l_init_called' failed!"
Seems we're loading the GUI plugin not properly
- define tasks to be addressed during investigation
- read documentation, identify problematic aspects
- prepare a child widget class to be placed on the canvas
My intention is to use this space for experiments first,
and then as a construction site for a rewrite of the
custom timeline widget.
We really need a rewrite here, in order to be properly
aligned to the standard way of writing such a custom widget,
and also to build our first connection to the UI-Bus and then
remove the old placeholder UI model
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.
unintentionally we used copy construction in the builder expression,
wenn passing in the CollectionBinding to the ChildCollectionMutator.
The problem is that CollectionBinding owns a shaddow buffer, where
the contents of the target collection are moved temporarily while
applying the diff. The standard implementation of copy construction
would cause a copy of that shaddow buffer, which boils down to
a copy of the storage of the target collection.
If we want to support move-only types in the collection, most notably
std::unique_ptr, we can thus only use the move constructor. Beyond that
there is no problem, since we're only ever moving elements, and new
elements will be move constructed via emplace() or emplace_back()
actually this is a pragmatic extension for some special use cases,
and in general rather discurraged, since it contradicts the
established diff semantics. Yet with some precaution, it should
be possible to transport information via an intermediary ETD
Map -> ETD -> Map
for the record: while it is indeed sweet-and-simple to support Ref::THIS
here, it is near impossible to represent it in general, in a setup with
multiple "onion-layers". The reason is, we'd have to incorporate such
special treatment into the /selector predicate/, which in turn undermines
the ability to pick the right onion layer to handle a given diff verb,
since "Ref::THIS" is a generic marker and we have no other data to base
the decision in the selector on.
...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
Up to now, InPlaceBuffer used to default construct an instance of the
Interface class, and then you'd need to invoke the `create()` function
to actually create the desired subclass. This is not only inefficient,
but rules out the use of abstract interfaces / base classes.
Unfortunately, there is no way in C++ to specify an explicit template argument list
on ctor calls, so we resort to the trick of passing an additional dummy marker argument
yay! this piece of code has served its purpose:
it was the blueprint to build a way better design and implementation,
which can now cover this "generic tree" case as a special case as well
this adds kind of an extension point to diff::Record<GenNode>::Mutator,
which is then actually defined (implemented) within the diff framework.
This allows the TreeDiffTraits automatically to use this function
to get a TreeMutator for a given Rec::Mutator. Which in turn allows
the generic version of DiffApplicator automatically to attach and
bind to a Record<GenNode>
together this allows us to ditch the explicit specialisation
and dedicated, hand-written implementation of DiffApplication
to GenNode in favour of using the TreeMutator and friends.
this is a subtle change in the semantics of the diff language,
actually IMHO a change towards the better. It was prompted by the
desire to integrate diff application onto GenNode-trees into the
implementation framework based on TreeMutator, and do away with
the dedicated implementation.
Now it is a matter of the *selector* to decide if a given layer
is responsible for "attributes". If so, then *all* elements within
this layer count as "attribute" and an after(Ref::ATTRIBS) verb
will fast forward behind *the end of this layer*
Note that the meta token Ref::ATTRIBS is a named GenNode,
and thus trivially responds to isNamed() == true
needed to use a forward function declaration within the
lambda for recursive scope mutator building, since otherwise
everything is inline and thus the compilation fails when it
comes to deducing the auto return type of the builder.
Other than that, the whole mechanics seem to work out of the box!
previously they where included in the middle of tree-mutator.hpp
This was straight forward, since the builder relies on the classes
defined in the detail headers.
However, the GenNode-binding needs to use a specifically configured
collection binding, and this in turn requires writing a recursive
lambda to deal with nested scopes. This gets us into trouble with
circular definition dependencies.
As a workaround we now only *declare* the DSL builder functions
in the tree-mutator-builder object, and additionally use auto on
all return types. This allows us to spell out the complete builder
definition, without mentioning any of the implementation classes.
Obviously, the detail headers have then to be included *after*
the builder definition, at bottom of tree-mutator.hpp
This also allows us to turn these implementation headers into
completely normal headers, with namespaces and transitive #includes
In the end, the whole setup looks much more "innocent" now.
But beware: the #include of the implementation headers at bottom
of tree-mutator.hpp needs to be given in reverse dependency order,
due to the circular inclusion (back to tree-mutator.hpp) in
conjunction with the inclusion guards!
...instead of using a hand written implementation,
the idea is to rely on the now implemented building blocks,
with just some custom closures to make it work.
- esp. verify the proper inclusion of the Selector closure in all Operations
- straighten the implementation of Attribute binding
- clean-up the error checking helpers
similar reordering for the third part.
This time most operations are either passed down anyway,
or are NOP, since attribute binding has no notion of 'order'
yay! unit testing rocks.
Actually I changed the test definition for another reason, just to discover
that I've missed to implement that operation in this onion layer
now failing due to a contradiction in test fixture:
it is nonsensical to re-order attributes; rather, we should
cover re-ordering of children, to verify that the mutator binding
properly surpasses the attribute layers and forwards operations
to the lower layers responsible for handling child scopes...
In Theory, acceptSrc and skipSrc are to operate symmetrically,
with the sole difference that skipSrc does not move anything
into the new content.
BUT, since skipSrc is also used to implement the `skip` verb,
which serves to discard garbage left back by a preceeding `find`,
we cannot touch the data found in the src position without risk
of SEGFAULT. For this reason, there is a dedicated matchSrc operation,
which shall be used to generate the verification step to properly
implement the `del` verb.
I've spent quite some time to verify the logic of predicate evaluation.
It seems to be OK: whenever the SELECTOR applies, then we'll perform
the local match, and then also we'll perform the skipSrc. Otherwise,
we'll delegate both operations likewise to the next lower layer,
without touching anything here.
--> now it becomes obvious that we've mostly
missed to integrate the Selector predicate properly
in most bindings defined thus far. Which now causes
the sub-object binding to kick in, while actually
the sub-value collection should have handled
the nested values CHILD_B and CHILD_T
OMG, this is intricate stuff....
Questionable if anyone (other than myself) will be able
to get those bindings right???
Probably we'll need yet another abstraction layer to handle
the most common binding situations automatically, so that people
can use the diff framework without intricate knowledge of
TreeMutator construction.
- an extension to our custom toString and typeString helpers.
- currently just for shared_ptr and unique_ptr
- might add further overloads for other smart-ptr types
integrated into the generic DiffApplicationStrategy.
The dedicated, explicit specialisation for DiffMutable is
no longer needed, since the generic template will degrade or
fall back to precisely this functionality, when the target
implements the DiffMutable interface
This is the first skeleton to combine all the building blocks,
and it passes compilation, while of course most of the binding
implementation still needs to be filled in...
It occurred to me, that 90% of this template specialisation
are entirely generic and not dependant on the actual target type.
While the compiler/linker is able to sort such a situation out,
this might lead to template bloat and possibly subtle errors.
So it seems more adequate to emit the generic part of the code
right away from within a dedicated translation unit within the
library module; so the vtable is already in place and only
the flexible part of the code needs to be re-emitted on
each usage site.
- default recommendation is to implement DiffMutable interface
- ability to pick up similar non-virtual method on target
- for anything else client shall provide free function mutatorBinding(subject)
PERSONAL NOTE: this is the first commit after an extended leave,
where I was in hospital to get an abdominal cancer removed.
Right now it looks like surgery was successful.
this is at the core of the integration problem: how do we expose
the ability of some opaque data structure to create a TreeMutator?
The idea is
- to use a marker/capability interface
- to use template specialisation to fabricate an instance of that interface
based on the given access point to the opaque data structure
