After investigation of current GTK and GIO code, I came to the conclusion
that we do *not* want to rely on the shiny new Gtk::Application, which
provides a lot of additional "convenience" functionality we do neither
need nor want. Most notably, we do not want extended desktop integration
like automatically connecting to D-Bus or exposing application actions
as desktop events.
After stripping away all those optional functions and extensions, it turns
out the basic code to operate the GTK main event loop is quite simple.
This changeset extracts this code from the (deprecated) Gtk::Main and
integrates it directly in Lumiera's UI framework object (UiManager).
this is just a tiny change to make things more othogonal.
Now the unwinding and calls to any GTK / Widget dtors happen *after*
emitting the term signal from UI shutdown. Which means, the other subsystems
are shutting down (in their dedicated threads) as well, thus lowering
the probability of some action still using the UI and triggering an exception
as it turned out, the former functionality was deactivated in 2009
with changeset 6151415
The whole concept seems to be unfinished, and needs to be reworked
and integrated with "Views and Perspectives" (whatever that is...)
See also #1097
Gtk::Main is deprecated, but the new solution, instantiating a
Gtk::Application object does not match our use case, since we handle
all application concerns already and just need a Gtk main loop to run.
Anyway, it became clear that the "main object" will be the new UiManager.
As a first step, I've now moved the (deprecated) Gtk::Main object
down there. Next step (planned) will be to inherit from Gio::Application
and clone some functionality from Gtk::Application
...again to make it work with GCC-5,
also to allow more leeway using various compilers
Explanation: we use a helper function to abbreviate the
demangled type names to make diagnostic ouput more readable.
Obviously such a function needs to be adjusted to the
way concrete compilers generate their type output; GCC-5
slightly differs to GCC-4.9 here, so I've made the regular
expressions a bit more flexible
we have a catch-all template operator to get a string converted
or pretty printed output from "any object". Unfortunately
this overload counts equivalent to another overload by
the IO manipulators. Solution is to define both operarators
similar in the first argument, thus turing the overload
for the IO manipulators into the more specific overload
due to the explicitly given second argument
as a result of the preceding refactorings, we have created a
top level UI context, and most actions are now just forwarede
to a dedicated entity within this globalCtx, mostly to the
InteractionDirector.
Thus we're able to get rid of the one-liner functions in
the Actions class by directly delegating to the respective
entity from within the menu definition lambda.
Is this safe?
Under the assumption that the global context outlives the
GTK main loop, this is safe.
...which opens more questions than it solves at the moment.
Especially note #1096, the question how to refer to object-IDs
Maybe we need to enable sending EntryIDs via GenNode?
Anyway, the magic spell is broken now: we have a way how to
establish commands and how to issue them from the UI, with full integration
of UI-Bus, layer separation facade, instance management and ProcDispatcher
Looks like a stepping stone
after extended analysis, it turned out to be a "placeholder concept"
and introduces an indirection, which can be removed altogether
- simple command invocation happens at gui::model::Tangible
- it is based on the command (definition) ID
- instance management happens automatically and transparently
- the extended case of context-bound commands will be treated later,
and is entirely self-contained
while the initial design treated the commands in a strictly top-down manner,
where the ID is known solely to the CommandRegistry, this change and information
duplication became necessary now, since by default we now always enqueue and
dispatch anonymous clone copies from the original command definition (prototype).
This implementation uses the trick to tag this command-ID when a command-hanlde
is activated, which is also the moment when it is tracked in the registry.
due to the refactorings, the instance was moved out prior to checking for
bound arguments. This is ammended now, albeit at the price of passing an
additional flagn and some tricky boolean conditions
this seems like an obvious functionality and basically harmless,
since commands are designed to be inherently stateful, which is reflected
in all the internal storage holders to expos an assignment operator
(even while the actual implementation is based on placement new instead
of assigning values into the storage, and thus even supports immutable
values). The only possible ramification is that argument values must
be default constructible
in accordance to the design changes concluded yesterday.
- in the standard cases we now check the global registry first
- automatically create anonymous clone copy from global commands
- reorganise code internally to use common tail implementation
as it turns out, we can always trigger commands right away,
the moment all arguments are known. Thus it is sufficient to
send a single argument binding message, which allows us to
get rid of a lot or ugly complexities (payload visitor).
It seems more adequate to push the somewhat intricate mechanics
for the "fall back" onto generic commands down into the implementation
level of CommandInstanceManager. The point is, we know the standard
usage situation is to rely on the instance manager, and thus we want
to avoid redundant table lookups, only to support the rare case of
fallback to global commands. The latter is currently used only from
unit-tests, but might in future also be used by scripts.
Due to thread safety considerations, I have refrained from handing
out a direct reference to the command token sitting in the registry,
even while not doing so incurs a small runtime penalty (accessing
the shared ref-count for creating a copy of the smart-handle).
This is the typical situation where you'd be tempted to sacrifice
sanity for the sake of an imaginary performance benefit, which
in fact is dwarfed by all the machinery of UI-Bus and argument
passing via GenNode.
but I am not happy with the implementation yet: the maybeGet just
doesn't feel right. Likely it will be a better idea to push that
fallback mechanism generally down into the CommandInstanceManager?
this might turn into lock contention problem, but better optimise
a correct implementation than fix a fast yet broken one.
Hint: SessionCommandFunction_test demonstrates that the
symbol table can be corrupted by creating Symbol instances
in parallel without proper locking. So yes, this is for real.
since Symbol instance are now backed by a symbol table,
we can use a much faster hash function by just hashing the
pointer into the symbol table, since the Symbol string content
is already checked at initialisation.
Up to now, we tolerated null pointers in Literal instances.
But we can not tolerate passing a null cString to Symbol initialisation.
Rather, hereby we introduce a dedicated "bottom" Symbol, a valid "null object"
For this task, I've also investigated to use boost::operators
This would only incur a negligible penalty on build times and executable sizes,
however, I don't consider the boost based solution to improve readability,
since many of these comparisons are tricky or subtly different.
Moreover, since boost::operators needs to be mixed-in, the initialisation
of Symbol objects becomes difficult, not to mention the additional base class
information visible in the debugger when inspecting Symbol or Literal objects
For that reason, I decided *against* using Boost here and coded up
all the operators in all combinations manually
...which means, from now on identical input strings
will produce the same Symbol object (embedded pointer).
TODO: does not handle null pointers passed in as c-String properly
