this fixes a silly mistake:
obviously we want named sub-nodes, aka. "Attributes",
but we used the anonymous sub-nodes instead, aka. "Children"
Incidentally, this renders the definitions also way more readable;
in fact the strange post-fix naming notation of the original version
was a clear indication of using the system backwards....
the intention is to rely solely upon this abstract interface
in order to navigate the structure of the actual UI, so the
resolution process remains decoupled from the technicalities
of the actual UI toolkit set.
Through implementation of the corresponding unit test we'll determine
what it actually takes to build such a path resolution algorithm...
obviously, we get a trivial case, when the path is explicit,
and we need a tricky full blown resolution with backtracking
when forced to interpolate wildcards to cover a given UICoord
spec against the actual UI topology.
Do we need it?
* actually not right now
* but already a complete implementation of the ViewSpec concept
requires such a resolution
It is not possible to inherit through boost operators
and defining them explicitly is not that much fuss either.
Plus we avoid the boost include on widely used header
the usual drill...
once there is one additional non explicit conversion ctor,
lots of preferred conversion paths are opened under various conditions.
The only remedy is to define all ctors explicitly, instead of letting the
compiler infer them (from the imported base class ctors). Because this way
we're able to indicate a yet-more-preferred initialisation path and thus
prevent the compiler from going the conversion route.
In the actual case, the coordinate Builder is the culprit; obviously
we need smooth implicit conversion from builder expressions, and obviously
we also want to restrict Builder's ctors to be used from UICoord solely.
Unfortunately this misleads the compiler to do implement a simple copy construction
from non const reference by going through the prohibited Builder ctor, or to
instantiate the vararg-ctor inherited from PathArray.
Thus better be explicit and noisy...
After completing the self-contained UICoord data elements,
the next thing to consider might be how to resolve UI coordinates
against an actual window topology. We need to define a suitable
command-and-query interface in order to build and verify this
intricate resolution process separated from the actual UI code.
responsible for access and allocation of component views.
Internally wired to the PanelLocator within the global WindowLocator
This setup settles those nasty qeustions of crosswise top-level access
this starts work on a new UI global topic (#1004)
- coin a new term: "view component"
- distinction between veiw component and Panel
- consider how to locate view components
- WindowList becomes WindowLocator
...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
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).
