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.
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
obsoleted by C++11
* in most cases, it can be replaced by an explicit conversion operator
* especially for the Lumiera Forward Iterators, we need an implicit conversion
It turns out we *do* support the use of anonymous commands
(while it is not clear yet if we really need this feature).
Basically, client code may either create and register a new
instance from another command used as prototype, by invoking
Command::storeDef(ID). Or, alternatively it may just invoke
newInstance() on the command, which creates a new handle
and a valid new implementation (managed by the handle as
smart-ptr), but never stores this implementation into the
CommandRegistry. In that case, client code may use such a
command just fine, as long as it cares to hold onto that
handle; but it is not possible to retrieve this command
instance later by symbolic ID.
In the light of this (possible) usage pattern, it doesn't
make sense to throw when accessing a command-ID. Rather, we
now return a placeholder-Symbol ("_anonymous_")
after reading some related code, I am leaning towards a design
to mirror the way command messages are sent over the UI-Bus.
Unfortunately this pretty much abandons the possibility to
invoke these operations from a client written in C or any
other hand made language binding. Which pretty much confirms
my initial reservation towards such an excessively open
and generic interface system.
based on the new generic tuple builder, we're now able to
add a new binding function into the command implementation
machinery, alongside the existing one. As it stands, the
latter will be used rather by unit tests, while the new
access path is what will be actually taken within
the application, when receiving argument binding
messages dispatched via the UI-Bus.
this was a classical example of a muddled and messed-up design,
driven just by the fact that I wanted to "spare" some functions,
with the net effect of writing more functions, plus a proxy class
plus create a lot of confusion for the reader.
This was easy to resolve though, once I resorted to the
general adivice to make public interface methods final,
make the extension ponts protected and never
to chain two extension points
