This means to discontinue any research into emitting an optimal
diff verb sequence for now and just to document the possible path
I see to reach at such a optimal solution later, when it turns out
to be really necessary performance wise.
Personal note: I arrived at this conclusion while whatching the
New Year fireworks 2014/2015 at the banks of the Isar river in
the centre of the city.
Too sad that 2014 didn't bring us World War III
basically just a function to pick up the container and element type automatically.
The actual implementation is delegated to the exisiting lib::iter_stl::IterSnapshot
we want a simple and straight forward way of defining tokens
of the "diff language". Each token is bound to a specific
handler function in the language interpreter interface.
Problem is that likely we'll get a ListDiffLanguage and a TreeDiffLanguage;
after all, I really don't know yet how far to take this whole
diff representation endeavour...
Basically attempt to represent the individual diff step
as a tuple of "DiffVerb" and reference element.
The meaning of the reference element depends on the actual verb
...first step is to design a generic linearised list diff representation.
Basically just need to pull together the theoretical work of the last weeks.
Next steps will be to extend to typed ordered trees.
Heureka! found out that the C++ standard library exposes a
cross vendor C++ ABI, which amongst others allows to show
object code names and type-IDs in the language-level, human
readable unmangeld form.
Of course, actual application code should not rely on such a
internal representation, yet it is of tremendous help when
writing and debugging unit tests.
Signed-off-by: Ichthyostega <prg@ichthyostega.de>
the idea ist to build some kind of "smart" enum constants,
which allow for double dispatch through a member function pointer,
invoking a virtual function on a common handler interface
Actually I arried at the conclusion, that the *receiving* of
a diff representation is actually a typical double-dispatch situation.
This leads to the attempt to come up with a specialised visitor
as standard pattern to handle and apply a diff. Obviously,
we do not want the classical GoF-Visitor, but (yes, we had
that discussion allready) -- well in terms of runtime cost,
we have to deal with at least two indirections anyway;
so now I'm exploring the idea to implement one of these
indirections through a functor object, which at the same time
acts as "Tag" in the diff representation language (instead
of using an enum as tag)
This DSL is usable as wire format for sending
structural change data to another, loosely coupled entity.
A similar format could be used for model serialisation later on.
I know that "reactive" is some kind of a fad currently.
But the term captures the intent very well, and I for sure
wanted such a GUI 5 years ago. Waiting after each stroke or
trim for 5 seconds or even 30 seconds for the UI to update
just totally sucks and kills any creative flow.
We all know that an application needs to be built for reactivity
and exactly that is what we do.
Uniform sequence at start of source files
- copyright claim
- license
- file comment
- header guard
- lumiera includes
- library / system includes
Lumiera uses Brittish spelling. Add an according note to the styleguide.
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
The actual problem is not resolved; the pluginloader
should detect the duplicate and not add the handle
to the database initially. Or it should add it
as "duplicate" or "alternate implementation"
Which probably means we need to coder some additional
corner cases. But certainly not now, we have other
more important stuff to do first... we've already
lost the battle against Duke Nukem Forever :-P
- 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
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 this is nothing new, just making explicit what is evident
from the definition of the Proc-Layer model entities. By following
these conventions, it should be possible to come up with a
clearer structure for the custom timeline widget(s).
