After quite some pondering, it occured to me that we both
- need some top-level model::Tangible to correspond to the RootMO in the session
- need some Controller to handle globally relevant actions
- need a way to link action invocation to transient interaction state (like focus)
This leads to the introduction of a new top-level controller, which is better
suited to fill that role than the depreacted model-controller or the demoted window-manager
looks like we're in management business here ;-)
we chop off heads, slaughter the holy cows and then install -- a new manager
This is a very pervasive change and basically turns the whole top-level
of the GTK-UI bottom-up. If this change turns out right, it would likely
solve #1048
WARNING: in parts not implemented, breaks UI
Now I've realised that there are two degrees of connectedness.
It is very much possible to have a "free standing" BusTerm, which
only allows to send uplink messages. In fact, this is how CoreService
is implemented, and probably it should also the way how to connect
the GuiNotification service...
Writing and debugging such tests is always an interesting challenge...
Fortunately this exercise didn't unveil any problem in the newly written
code, only some insidious problems in the test fixture itself. Which
again highlights the necessity, that each *command instance* needs
to be an independent clone from the original *command prototype*,
since argument binding messages and trigger messages can appear
in arbitrary order.
not quite sure how to get the design straight.
Also a bit concerned because we'll get this much indirections;
the approach to send invocations via the UI-Bus needs to prove its viability
Did a full review of state and locking logic, seems airtight now.
- command processing itself is unimplemented, we log a TODO message for now
- likewise, builder is not implemented
- need to add the deadlock safeguard #1054
After some consideration, it became clear that this service implementation
is closely tied to the DispatcherLoop -- which will consequently be
responsible to run and expose this service implementation
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.
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
...it seemed first that we'd might run into a very fundamental problem;
but after some consideration it turns out the interspersed display manager
and the decoupling between model/presenter and widget happens to mitigate
this problem as well.
the content of the "GuiTimelineWidgetStructure" tiddler is
actually related to architecture questions related to custom widgets
in general, plus working notes regarding an investigation of the
Gtk::Layout widget.
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()
- define tasks to be addressed during investigation
- read documentation, identify problematic aspects
- prepare a child widget class to be placed on the canvas
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
