This does not really change the logic of the DisplayEvaluation mechanism,
but makes it much more flexible: instead of having two hard wired components,
the DisplayEvaluation visitor now holds a collection of LayoutElement pointers.
This way, the Layout manager itself (on behalf of the ZoomWindow) can
participate in the process, and on activation will now establish the
window width in pixel.
This works now insofar the drawing on the canvas is adapted coherently;
however something with the setup of the Scrollbar is still not quite right;
some time ago I recall the scrollbar worked, but now it is blocked
and the canvas just clips to the right side.
It is now tied to the start of ZoomWindow::overallSpan(),
thereby defining the (technical) pixel coordinates within the window
and for drawing on the canvas to be always positive. Whenever ZoomWindow
re-calibrates, it's change signal will trigger, causing the
TimelineLayout to perform a new DisplayEvaluationPass,
which in turn prompts all embedded widgets to readjust
their positions accordingly.
Note: changing behaviour of TimeSpan to possibly flip start and end,
and also to use Offset as Offset and then re-orient,
since this seems the least surprising behaviour.
These changes carry over into changed default and limiting
on ZoomWindow constructor and various mutators, and most
notably shifting the time span always into allowed domain.
...the implementation was way too naive; in some cases we could go
into an infinite loop. In the end, using Newton approximation was not
necessary (and thus there is no loop anymore), but it helped me get
at a much better solution with very small error margin on average case.
All these corner cases are obviously "academic" to some degree,
but it turns out there is no clear-cut point where you'd be able
just so set a limit and be sure that fractional integer arithmetic
works flawless in all cases.
Thus the choice is
- give up (fractional) integers and work with floats and have to
deal with error accumulation
- or do something as chosen here, namely add a boundary zone, where
fractional integer arithmetic can be kept under control, while admitting
small errors, and in turn get the absolutely precise integers in all
everyday standard cases
The value used previously was too conservative, and prevented ZommWindow
from zooming out to the complete Time domain. This was due to missing the
Time::SCALE denominator, which increaded the limit by factor 1e6
In fact the code is able to handle even this extremely reduced limit,
but doing so seems over the top, since now detox() kicks in on several
calculations, leading to rather coarse grained errors.
Thus I decided to use a compromise: lower the limit only by factor 1000;
with typical screen pixel widths, we can reach the full time domain,
while most scaling and zoom calculations can be performed precisely,
without detox() kicking in. Obviously this change requires adjusting
a lot of the test case expectations, since we can now zoom out maximally.
As it turns out, the calculation path initially choosen for the mutateScale(Rat)
was needlessly indirect, and also duplicated several of the safeguards,
meanwhile implemented way better in conformWindowToMetric(Rat)
Thus, instead of relatively re-scaling the window, now we just
limit the given zoomFactor and pass it to conformWindowToMetric()
There is a built-in limitation, which now is even
lowered to 100000 pixels horizontally.
With the techniques introduced in this changeset, it seems possible
to support more -- yet this would be a case of unnecessary genricity;
handling such large numbers will drive more computations into the
danger zone, and doing so incurs cost in terms of testing and debugging.
Placing that into context, contemporary displays are not even 4K on
average, and it does not look likely even for cinema display to go
way beyond 8k -- so yes, I want display hardware with 100000 pixels!!
The key takeaway of this changeset:
- can calculate px = trunc(zoomFactor * duration) step wise,
even when the direct calculation would lead to wrap-around
- can safely adjust and fix the zoomFactor using Newton approximation
...even zooming out to span the complete time domain (~19000 years).
But only under the condition that the display window is sufficiently
large in terms of pixels, so we can handle the computation without
glitches.
This should not be a relevant limitation in practice, since a window
size of some 100 pixels is enough to handle Duration::MAX. Needless to add
that it's hard to imagine a media timeline of such tremendous size...
building on these Library changes, plus the safe-add function
developed some days ago, it is now possible to mark a large displacement
as `time::Offset`, and apply this to yield any valid time position,
even extreme negative values
...building on these Library changes, plus the safe-add function
developed some days ago, it is now possible to mark a large displacement
as `time::Offset`, and apply this to yield any valid time position,
even extreme negative values
The APIs for time quantisation were drafted in an early stage of the project
and then never followed-up. Especially Grid::gridAlign has no
real-world usage yet, and is only massaged in some tests.
When looking at QuantiserBasics_test, I was puzzled and led astray,
since this function suggests to materialise a continuous time into
a quantised time -- which it doesn't (there is another dedicated
function Quantiser::materialise() to that end); so, without engaging
into the discussion if this function is of any use, I'll hereby
choose a name better reflecting what it does.
This is a deep refactoring to allow to represent the distance
between all valid time points as a time::Offset or time::Duration.
By design this is possible, since Time::MAX was defined as 1/30 of
the maximum value technically representable as int64_t. However,
introducing a different limiter for offsets and durations turns
out difficult, due to the inconsistencies in the exiting hierarchy
of temporal entities. Which in turn seems to stem from the unfortunate
decision to make time entities immutable, see #1261
Since the limiter is hard wired into the `time::TimeValue` constructor,
we are forced to create a "backdoor" of sorts, to pass up values
with different limiting from child classes. This would not be so
much of a problem if calculations weren't forced to go through `TimeVar`,
which does not distinguish between time points and time durations.
This solution rearranges all checks to be performed now by time::Offset,
while time::Duration will only take the absolute value at construction,
based on the fact that there is no valid construction path to yield
a duration which does not go through an offset first.
Later, when we're ready to sort out the implementation base of time values
(see #1258), this design issue should be revisited
- either we'll allow derived classes explicitly to invoke the limiter functions
- or we may be able to have an automatic conversion path from clearly
marked base implementation types, in which case we wouldn't use the
buildRaw_() and _raw() "backdoor" functions any more...
While the calculation was already basically under control, I just was not content
with the achieved numeric precision -- and the fact that the test case in fact
misses the bar, making it difficult do demonstrate that the calculation
is not derailed. I just had the gut feeling that it must be somehow possible
to achieve an absolute error level, not just a relative error level of 1e-6
Thus I reworked this part into a generic helper function, see #1262
The end result is:
* partial failure. we can only ''guarantee'' the relative error margin of 1e-6
* but in most cases not out to the most extreme numbers, the sophisticated
solution achieves much better results way below the absolute error level of 1µ-Tick
Thus with using rational numbers, we have now a solution that is absolutely precise
in the regular case, and gradually introduces errors at the domain bound
but with an guaranteed relative error margin of 1e-6 (== Time::SCALE)
...now able to achieve the expected error bound of 1e-6
...this seems to be the worst-case for ZoomWindow::setVisiblePos(factor)
for extremely large timeline; seemingly not possible to achieve the
goal set for this special test case
...in a similar vein as done for the product calculation.
In this case, we need to check the dimensions carefully and pick
the best calculation path, but as long as the overall result can
be represented, it should be possible to carry out the calculation
with fractional values, albeit introducing a small error.
As a follow-up, I have now also refactored the re-quantisation
functions, to be usable for general requantisation to another grid,
and I used these to replace the *naive* implementation of the
conversion FSecs -> µ-Grid, which caused a lot of integer-wrap-around
However, while the test now works basically without glitch or wrap,
the window position is still numerically of by 1e-6, which becomes
quite noticeably here due to the large overall span used for the test.
...using a requantisation trick to cancel out some factors in the
product of two rational numbers, allowing to calculate the product
without actual multiplication of (dangerously large) numbers.
with these additional safeguards, the anchorWindowAtPosition()
succeeds without Integer-wrap, but the result is not fully correct
(some further calculation error hidden somewhere??)
- detailed documentation of known problematic behaviour
when working with rational fractions
- demonstrate the heuristic predicate to detect dangerous numbers
- add extensive coverage and microbenchmarks for the integer-logarithm
implementation, based on an example on Stackoverflow. Surprising result:
The std::ilog(double) function is of comparable speed, at least for
GCC-8 on Debian-Buster.
Especially rational numbers with large denominator can be insidious,
since they might cause numeric overflow on seemingly harmless operations,
like adding a small number.
A solution might be to *requantise* the number into a different,
way smaller denominator. Obviously this is a lossy operation;
yet a small and controlled numeric error is always better than
an uncontrolled numeric wrap-around.
- protection against negative numbers seems adequate
- a possible concern are handling of very large time spans
- definitively have to guard against "poisonous" fractions
(e.g. n / INT_MAX)
- some test definitions were simply numerically wrong
- changed some aspects of the specified behaviour, to be more consistent
+ scrolling is more liberal and always allows to extend canvas
+ setting window to a given duration expands around anchor point
This function allows to move the visible range such that it contains
a given time position; the relative location of this point within
the visible range however is in turn determined by relating it to
the current overall canvas: if we are close to the beginning, the
position is also located rather to the left side, and if we're
approaching the canvas end, the position tends to the right side...
(and yes, I am aware that the variant taking a rational number
can be derailed by causing internal numeric overflow, when passing
a maliciously crafted rational number, like INT_MAX-1 / INT_MAX )
Rearrange the internal mutator functions to follow a common scheme,
so that most of the setters can be implemented by simple forwarding.
Move the change-listener triggering up into the actual setters.
This makes further test cases pass
- verify_setup
- verify_calibration
...implying that the pixel width is now retained
and basic behaviour matches expectations
Since conformWindowToMetric() is always called prior to performing
the complete invariant-reestablishment sequence, we can even integrate
the rule for relative scaling into this central function, which
simplifies the mutation implementation significantly. Should
relative positioning go south, the following sanity checks
will push the window back into bounds.
With these changes, the verify_simpleUsage() test passes!
Extensive tests with corner cases soon highlighted this problem
inherent to integer calculations with fractional numbers: it is
possible to derail the calculation by numeric overflow with values
not excessively large, but using large numbers as denominator.
This problem is typically triggered by addition and subtraction,
where you'd naively not expect any problems.
Thus changed the approach in the normalisation function, relying
on an explicitly coded test rather, and performing the adjustment
only after conversion back to simple integral micro-tick scale.
Getting all those requirements translated into code turns out to be a challenging task;
and the usual ascent to handle such a situation is to define **Invariants**
in conjunction with a normalisation scheme; each manipulation will then be
translated into invocation of one of the three fundamental mutators,
and these in turn always lead into the common normalisation sequence.
__Invariants__
- oriented and non-empty windows
- never alter given pxWidth
- zoom metric factor < max zoom
- visibleWindow ⊂ Canvas
Writing this specification unveiled a limitation of our internal
time base implementation, which is a 64bit microsecond grid.
As it turns out, any grid based time representation will always
be not precise enough to handle some relevant time specifications,
which are defined by a divisor. Most notably this affects the precise
display of frame duration in the GUI, and even more relevant,
the sample accurate editing of sound in the timeline.
Thus I decided to perform the internal computation in ZoomWindow
as rational numbers, based on boost::rational
Note: implementation stubbed only, test fails
This ZoomWindow_test highlights again the question about the intended usage
of the Lumiera time entities. In which way do we want to perform time calculations,
and under which circumstances is it adequate to perform arithmetic on
raw time values?
These questions made me think about rather far reaching concerns regarding
subsidiarity and implicit or explicit usage context. Basically I could
reconfirm the design choices taken some years ago -- while I must admit
that the project is headed towards a way larger scale and more loose
coupling of the parts, than I could imagine several years ago, at the
time when the design started...
As a side note: we can not avoid that some knowledge about the time implementation
leaks out from the support lib; time codes themselves are tightly coupled
to the usage scenario within the session and can not be used as means
for implementing UI concerns. And the more generic time frameworks,
like std::chrono (as much as it is desirable to have some integration here)
will not be of any help for most of our specific usage patterns.
The reason is, for film editing we do not have a global time scale,
rather the truth is when the film starts....
implement the first test case: nudge the zoom factor
⟹ scale factor doubled
⟹ visible window reduced to half size
⟹ visible window placed in the middle of the overall range
The solution is to provide a standard implementation in the form of a mix-in,
which directly houses a `ZoomWindow` instance. Moreover, the latter
is deemed a prominent use case for the time::Control, allowing other
components to attach and push changes of the zoom state or register
as listeners to react to state changes.
Actually, the `TimelineLayout`, which hosts all the actual visible
widgets forming the timeline-UI, now integrates this mix-in; and since
`TimelineLayout` is passed to `TimelineController` and used there as
reference-`CanvasHook` for the root track, this implementation of
the `DisplayMetric` interface will ''effectively be used by all
widgets'' attached to the timeline canvas.
Reading my work notes from two years ago, the concept can be validated.
Clarify the relation of the interfaces involved, and the role foreseen
for the upcoming `ZoomWindow` abstraction. This solution approach
will lead to multiple-stage indirect calls, which however are deemed
not to be overly concerning and will be investigated later, to avoid
premature optimisation (see #1254)
- `DisplayMetric` is a focused special purpose abstraction
- it belongs into the general abstraction of the `DisplayManager`
- it is rather linked by use to the other abstraction, the `CanvasHook`
- while the `RelativeCanvasHook` is not an interface, but an implementation mix-in
- and the actual `DisplayMetric` implementation can likewise be provided
as mix-in, since it will typically be implemented in terms of a `ZoomWindow`
Using this scheme, it will be possible to avoid some of the indirect cally
by making this mix-in visible higher up the call graph -- in case the
actual need for optimisation can be confirmed in practice.
* restructure the widgets used to implement ElementBox
* inject a Gtk::EventBox top-level base type to capture all Gdk-Events
* push the Gtk::Frame one level down (TODO: API for managing children)
With these changes
* dragging of Clips in the timeline works as expected
* size constraints are observed precisely
* all warnings and assertion failures from GTK disappeared
Thus we can conclude that the solution approach for size constrained widgets
was successful and this challenging problem is solved.
...as it turned out, the ClipWidget did still invoke the
Gtk::Frame::set_label() function, thereby deactivate our
elaborate custom IDLabel and showing the label text
unconditionally instead (also violating our size constraint)
...as it turns out, this code basically works already when the
widget is not(yet) realized:
- when a widget is hidden, it responds with size=0
- when a widget is shown, it reponds with proper or at least
preliminary size requirement, irrespective if already drawn
After injecting the diff, the widgets are created and then adjusted
in several steps; however, this code all executes from within a single
call to the UI-bus, and thus just piles up a sequence of realize()
and resize() messages, which are only executed later, in case the
Application-UI as a whole is visible on screen.
*Remaining Problems*:
- size-constraint code not working correct in all cases
- dragging works only on the buttons, not on the background
According to plan, this was more or less a drop-in replacement.
However, this first integration prototype highlights some design problems
* `ElementBoxWidget` is designed ''constructor-centric''
* but the population by diff messages will supply crucial information later
* and seemingly the size-constraint code is now invoked prior to widget realisation \\
⟹ Assertion Failure
rework each of the 32px, 48px and 16px variants
so that the shape appears clear and succinct when rendered,
taking the aliasing into account; fine-tune and balance shadows.
Since this is one of the most central concepts in Lumiera,
and this Icon is expected to become a hallmark of the Lumiera UI,
it seems adequate to spend about two days on this graphic work.
- Test the new layout code with debugger + dump messages
- Experiment: live changes to the name-ID content
(send msg. "manip" -> Text changed and Layout properly revalidated)
devise a more fine grained algorithm for adapting the display of IDLabel
to a situation with size constrained layout, e.g. for a time calibrated canvas.
We still do not implement the shortening of ID labels (see #1242),
since doing so would be surprisingly expensive. But at least we
do proceed in several steps now
- first attempt to reduce the name-ID (for now: hide it)
- if this doesn't suffice, also hide the menu
- and as a last resort, hide the icon and thus make the IDLabel empty
We are using buttons now, but the standard theme introduces a lot of padding arount button's contents.
Thus we need to consider ways to address the compound of widgets forming an ElementBox; moreover,
this is the classical situation where the BEM notation helps to clarify the intention....
The problem leading to custom styling here is the padding within buttons;
the default stylesheet seemingly adds a min-width and min-height setting,
and some padding within the Button; based on systematic CSS class names,
it is possible to remove these settings specifically for buttons
within the IDLabel in general (no need to treat only the case of an EventBoxLabel
-- IDLabel could become a custom widget on its own
As we continue with building the backbone of the UI,
and abundance of detail information regaring Layout and styling
will be encountered -- it is tantamount to have a place to
write those findings down....
as it turns out, this is a self-contained separate concern,
and thus this arrangement of two icons plus a caption shall
now manage itself as a custom widget.
And while touching this subject, I have also reconsidered
the purpose and arrangement of those icons and completed
the specification with some decisions...
- context menus will be left-click, selection right-click (Blender!)
- we will always show those two icons, just allocate different graphics
- when there is no expander, the 2nd icon will just serve to open the menu
- so the button is almost redundant in that case (except when dragging)
Further extended GTK code survey to clarify the role of the minimum_size,
it is indeed ignored by most standard containers, but it is actually
used by Gtk::Layout as starting point for the query sequence. Thus
it does not make sense to treat minimum and natural size differently;
both queries should be responded by returning our size constraint.
Unless we define additional borders and margins in the CSS, we can be sure
that GTK will base the size allocation on the exact values returned
from the get_required_* functions.
These functions will be invoked only from within the Event Loop
and after the ctor is finished, but before the first "draw".
They will be re-invoked on each "size change" event and on each
focus change (since a focus change may change the style and thus
the actual extension).
...the key point is to ask the embedded box holding the label
about it's preferred_size() -- this info is updated immediately,
even at begin, when the nested child widgets did not yet receive
an allocation.
Even while the preferred-size is something different than the
actual allocation, it will always be smaller and is thus sufficient
to decide if the size constraint can be met
The header "format-cout.hpp" offers a convenience function
to print pretty much any object or data in human readable form.
However, the formatter for pointers used within this framework
switched std::cout into hexadecimal display of numbers and failed
to clean-up this state.
Since the "stickyness" of IOS stream manipulators is generally a problem,
we now provide a RAII helper to capture the previous stream state and
automatically restore it when leaving the scope.
...does not work reliably yet...
- on first invocation, the child allocation is still zero
- later on, there seem to be lots of further invocations,
always when the application window gains focus
- these further invocations somehow change the visible extension
of the widget's background
identify the various dimensions, which require flexibility
to support the intended use cases; try to come up with a
design draft, allowing to settle on a preliminary version
soon, while not hampering further development later on.
Obviously this is a very deep and challenging topic,
and we're far from even remotely addressing it adequately;
we just need to get to the point to use this drafted version
as building block, since these usages will then push us further
into the right direction...
Investigate how the GTK implementation allocates size extension
to widgets and child widgets; identify possible extensions points
and work out a solution strategy to make GTK observe our specific
size constraints, which are derived from a time calibrated canvas.
The flexible custom styling yet needs to be definied.
Just adding a stock icon and a standard sized label field for now.
Widget can be constructed and successfully attached to a track.
Complete the investigation and turn the solution into a generic
mix-in-template, which can be used in flexible ways to support
this qualifier notation.
Moreover, recapitulate requirements for the ElementBoxWidget
Basically we want to create ElementBoxWidgets according to a
preconfigured layout scheme, yet we'll need to pass some additional
qualifiers and optional features, and these need to be checked
and used in accordance with the chosen flavour...
Investigating a possible solution based on additional ctor parameters,
which are given as "algebraic terms", and actually wrap a functor
to manipulate a builder configuration record
Seems to work solid now, after switching to the root coordinates provided by GDK.
With local relative coordinates, the subject fidgets while being dragged,
for obvious reasons, since we're shifting the relative point of reference.
Also clarified a strange behaviour of the test drawing code:
Cairo is "turtle graphics", so we need to set the starting point explicitly.
...well, the metric translation is not quite correct,
so it doesn't yet stick to the mouse. But all the challenging
problems within the framework for implementing such a generic
gesture seem to be solved now.
The ClipPresenter can access the CanvasHook wired into its actual ClipDelegate (widget).
And this in turn exposes the DisplayMetric, with the ability to transform
presentation coordinates (pixels) into a model representation (Time)
The actual translation is still hardwired placeholder code,
since it is planned to build an generic component "ZoomWindow"
to provide all the typical zomming and view window translations
found in every timeline editor
- move construct into the buffer
- directly invoke the payload constructor through PlantingHandle
- reconsider type signature and size constraint
- extend the unit test
- document a corner case of c++ "perfect forwarding",
which caused me some grief here
...this extension was spurred by the previeous refactoring.
Since 'emplace' now clearly denotes an operation to move-embed an existing object,
we could as well offer a separate 'create' API, which would take forwarding
arguments as usual and just delegates to the placement-new operation 'create'
already available in the InPlaceBuffer class.
Such would be a convenience shortcut and is not strictly necessary,
since move-construction is typically optimised away; yet it would also
allow to support strictly non-copyable payload types.
This refactoring also highlights a fuzziness in the existing design,
where we just passed the interface type, while being sloppy about the
DEFAULT type. In fact this *is* relevant, since any kind of construction
might fail, necessitating to default-construct a placeholder, since
InPlaceBuffer was intended for zero-overhead usage and thus has in itself
no means to know about the state of its buffer's contents. Thus the
only sane contract is that there is always a valid object emplaced
into the buffer, which in turn forces us to provide a loophole for
class hierarchies with an abstract base class -- in such a case the
user has to provide a fallback type explicitly.
...for the operation on a PlantingHandle, which allows
to implant a sub type instance into the opaque buffer.
* "create" should be used for a constructor invocation
* "emplace" takes an existing object and move-constructs
this allows to avoid multi-step indirection
when translating mouse dragging pixel coordinates
into a time offset for the dragged clip widget.
Moreover this also improves the design,
since the handling of canvas metric is pretty much
a self contained, separate concern
...previously this was modelled as part of the CanvasHook abstraction,
and in fact it will in any case be implemented by delegation to the
TimelineLayout or some kind of display manager.
We need this to tanslate mouse pixel movements into a time change
while dragging, effectively we have to translate a mouse position delta
into a TimeValue delta, and we want to avoid direct coupling to some
timeline display manager, to keep the gesture logic mostly generic.
some bugfixes,
but also a notable change: detect the completion of the gesture
directly when the button is released; this is necessary, because
seemingly we do not get motion_events when no button is pressed,
at least not in this test setup based on a Gtk::Button widget.
In 2017, I did a first design draft, followed by a design critique,
which partially obsoleted some ideas regarding command binding.
Mostly, the reason to abandon parts of that initial design was
due to the fact, that to many actual construction details of the
UI framework were not worked out at that time.
Thus I rather focussed on (re)-building a backbone for the timeline display,
in order to support that kind of flexibility aspired within the session model.
Now, when re-visiting the topic of an UI gesture (using simple dragging
of a clip in the timeline as an example for a first draft), I picked up
some of those planned structures, but tend to bind them together in
a slightly different way -- more akin to a state machine and less
in the way of an LR-parser.
This chagneset updates the relevant part within the TiddlyWiki
and the corresponding UML drawing to better reflect my actual thinking.
...because this is a prototype, but should fit in
with a future frameworks to handle complex interactions and gestures.
And no, we can not afford to rely on a UI toolkit for such a core concern
It is impossible that a framework like e.g. GTK will allow us to
support a custom made hardware controller and integrate it seamlessly
into getsture handling, thereby following a design philosophy that
is in accordance with our fundamental decisions.
...found out that GTK already implements an "implicit grab",
and thus the tricky situation that the mouse slides off the widget
can not happen at all; so in the end it's rather easy to build a trigger
for a dragging gesture.
The demo code is now activated only after the button is down
and just prints the position...
PS: did some research regarding the new Coroutines in C++
Setup the scaffolding necessary to get at the actual clip widget
and to establish a signal connection to the button_pressed signal.
The intention is to watch this in conjunction with mouse movements
for detection of the actual gesture.
At the moment, I am using button widgets as placeholder for the actual
clip widgets (not yet implemented...). And, as a tiny little success,
these buttons now invoke the gesture controller on right click
(left click is seemingly consumed by the button itself)
thus far my implementation concept seems to work as intended....
note: when populating the timeline with actual Clips,
the not-yet implemented linkSubject()-Function of the DragRelocateController
gets invoked (as it should), thereby killing Lumiera
...actually postpone to build a generic translation system and use hard wired relations for now;
it is acknowledged that we'll need some kind of translation system eventually,
once the GUI has to handle a lot of possibly configurable gestures.
..and thus there is now one dedicated source location,
where configuration of new clip widgets can be done reliably.
So all prerequisites are solved and we can start
building a prototypical drag-gesture implementation
The specific twist with the clip display lies in the fact
that there might or might not be a dedicated clip widget,
based on the current presentation style and zoom level.
Consequently we need hook up the widget for dragging,
only when, and whenever a new clip widget is actually created.
This boils down to the requirement to detect whenever a state change
creates a dedicated widget -- and this can only be sensibly implemented
when all display state transitions are handled by a single function.
Previously, we had two specialised functions for this purpose:
one to initially create the delegate and one to switch the
implementation type for an already existing delegate.
This refactoring attempts to merge all this logic into a single function,
which now unfortunately became quite complex and hard to understand.
My planning thus far seems solid enough to start fleshing out one concrete gesture handling,
which can serve as a blueprint for a generic scheme to be worked out later.
Moreover, the implementation is limited to mouse interaction for the time being,
while the goal remains to treat "gestures" in a way to span several
Interaction-Schemes eventually (mouse, key sequence, pen...).
...since it would be problematic, so store the prospective context data
for any conceivable gesture within each Widget possibly addressed by that gesture.
After some mulling over, today it finally occurred to me,
that I already solved a similar problem for the layout management,
and the very structure of ViewModel vs. Widget vs. Canvas settles
around that solution. Thus we could try to expand that structure --
which means that the gesture context is only created *late*, when the
gesture starts; and then the *subject* should be reponsible to collect
and establish the context for the gesture and feed it to the
gesture-controller, not the other way round
...even while keeping the focus to the actual problem at hand,
this solution must be built with the larger goal in mind, which
is the ability to support various editing gestures, transmitted
possibly through several control-systems (mouse, keybindings, pen...)
It is obvious that we'll need a dedicated controller for each kind of gesture;
what turns out as tricky is to maintain and bind a stateful context
and find the correct participants while a specific gesture is under way.
As it turned out, I drafted a rather elaborate vision in 2017,
leading to the conclusion to better just implement the very simple
"point and shot" command invocation and to postpone anything more
advanced to a later point, when the properties of the actual UI
are defined more clearly.
Thus, what I have to build now is a first step in the direction
of the more elaborate vision, but only that, namely a first draft,
which should fit into the more complete solution later.
Can we build a simple feature to allow dragging clips in the timeline display?
Well... not really, at least not "simple".
As it turns out, the GTK-framework only supports classic "drag-n-drop",
which translates into sending an action to a drag target to receive a "document".
And, even worse, dragging clips must be implemented as a UI gesture,
and as such overlaps with the other gestures for editing, trimming.
In 2017, I did an comprehensive analysis of this problem, and then
concluded to postpone it. Thus the task now would be to build a
*simplified preview*, while being aware of the danger of creating
oversimplified structures, and the danger to hamper a complete
solution for implementing UI gestures...
Now basically the header labels are aligned with the start of the corresponding body area.
However, there still seems to be some minor glitch hidden somewhere,
and the labels seem to be off by one pixel per track. Also the allocated
canvas size is to small after first evaluation, but somehow gets
corrected whenever the window is resized.
