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
it is a widely accepted rule to shape names with the usage site in mind.
Especially this means, that we use the singular form for all kinds
of collections and assortments.
Thus, the namespace should be called "widget" not "widgets",
because at usage site this becomes gui::widget::TimelineWidget
Likewise for "dialogs" and "pannels"
previously this operation was named 'attach', which an be confused
with attching an object to this location. Indeed, the session interface
even offers such an attach function. By renaming the focus moving
operation into QueryFocus::shift(Scope), this ambiguity is resolved
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.
initial considerations; there is a concurrency problem, since
all of session handling within Proc is deliberately not threadsafe.
Thus the decision is to make this the gui::model::SessionFacade's responsibility
Mark parts of the timeline state handling which will certainly
not be retained: any part where the GUI widgets "hold" some kind
of model. GUI widgets shall be *mapped upon* a model representation
and *wired* with callbacks.
Especially I am suspicious when GUI presentation code "reaches into"
any kind of model data structure to find out something. It should
be the other way round (dont call us, we call you)
actually we should make our timeline a real custom widget,
and do it according to the letter. I.e. really implement
all those callbacks which are recommended, but no other
callbacks.
This has the additional benefit of being able to retrieve
the drawing style in the official way, and define our own
CSS classes, which can be styled by the user in a systematic way.
This is not really a solution, but kind of narrowes down the problem.
Our GUI uses an obsolete C-ish approach at releasing resources at
several points. This is probably a left-over from earlier days.
Especially since we started out with libGDL without C++ wrappers.
And at that time, we didn't use smart-pointers, as we should do,
but we tried to do things manually, which is an approach which never
works in an event driven and condition based environment. Goto fail.
Here I just commented out the manual clean-up code from several dtors.
The real solution would be not to allocate these resources through
the raw C calls at first place, but rather use the mm-wrappers
and leave it to them to unwind at the right moment.
TODO:
- scan the GUI code for *every* instance where we still muck around with gobjects
and either replace that by a mm-wrapper, or wrap it in a smart handle.
- make sure that *all* dtors are either empty, or really airtight and EX_FREE
Our GUI shutdown logic looks rather confused. Why the hell do
some widgets "unregister" themselves in a dtor. This should never
be necessary. Maybe it's a leftover from C-style programming
and obsolete now, after the switch to GDLmm
the problem seems to be the interplay with the installed user
theme; what looks well with one theme is messed up with another
one, quite insidious.
Attempt to settle down on a set of default definitions
for borders and element background colors, which make the
Lumiera Gui "dark" but still respect the user's theme
for geometry and widget style
verified: basically works
todo: better handling of parse errors.
Currently this is treated as an unexpected exception and just
terminates the whole application, without any suitable diagnostics.
This makes working on the stylesheet somewhat brittle. GTK-3 actually
offers a signal to be invoked in case of CSS parsing errors
(see #953)
Comment out the active part of the GdkDisplayer implementation,
but retain the class, to make compilation pass.
With the Switch to GTK-3, only Cairo drawing is supported.
We need a new solution for video display...
Lots off commented out blocks of code
but most issues are related to simple function name changes,
set/get_flags calls, anything that has to do with a Gtk::Style...
Plan of attack from here is to go one-by one of each commented-out or code and update to gtk3 specs.
trying to track down where these messages
GLib-GObject-CRITICAL **: g_object_unref: assertion G_IS_OBJECT (object) failed
are coming from. These appear when iconifying panels.
right now we have to defeat an unfortunate static assertion in
the standard library, which is expected to go away in the future.
We use a hack to hijack the problematic definition with the preprocessor,
which requires our header to be first.
the rules are:
- our own headers go before any library headers
- all headers need to be spelled relative to include root
- ensure that gtk is always included via gui/gtk-base.hpp
* use a development snapshot of lib SigC including the recent C++11 adaptations
* never include whole namespaces. Here we got a clash between std::bind and sigc::bind
* use lambdas
* to make the binding code more readable
* to take the nested invocations apart, which resolves the return type ambiguity
In the November developer meeting, Christian and I agreed that
it's best to remove that offending LUID specifications altogether.
Those embedded LUIDs where one of the issues blocking the transition to C++11
