* have a dedicated "information hub" controller, which acts a receiver of "error log messages" on the UI-Bus
* let that controller in turn allocate an apropriate view on demand
The goal is to build a (in itself completely meaningless) ping-pong interaction
between the UI and Proc-Layer, for the purpose of driving the integration ahead.
The immediate challenge is how to create and place an apropriate "GuiComponentView",
i.e. a Tangible, which is connected to the UI-Bus with an predictable EntryID.
And the problem is to get that settled right now, without building the envisioned
generic framework for View allocation in the UI. When this is achieved,
it should be a rather small step to actually send those notifications over
the UI-Bus, which is basically implemented and ready by now.
...because due of #211, we usually don't execute commands yet.
For now there is only the backdoor to prefix the command-ID with "test"
With this change, the TODO message appears now immediately after GUI start!
In the end, I decided against building a generic service here,
since it pretty much looks like a one-time problem.
Preferrably UI content will be pushed or pulled on demand,
rather than actively coding content from within the UI-Layer
...and while doing so, also re-check the state of the GTK toolkit initialisation.
Looks like we're still future-proof, while cunningly avoiding all this
Gnome-style "Application" blurb
I will abandon work on the ViewSpec DSL in current shape (everything fine with that)
and instead work on a general UI start-up and content population sequence.
From there, my intention is to return to the docks, the placement of views
and then finally to the TimelineView
This finishes the first round of design drafts in this area.
Right now it seems difficult to get any further, since most of
the actual view creation and management in the UI is not yet coded.
looks like I'm trapped with the choice between a convoluted API design
and an braindead and inefficient implementation. I am leaning towards the latter
looks like we're hitting a design mismatch here....
...and unfortunately I have to abandon this task now and concentrate
on preparation of my talk at LAC.2018 in June
it seems apropriate to move the base definition of gui::idi::Descriptor<VIEW>
into view-spec-dsl.hpp and only retain the actual DSL definitions in id-scheme.hpp
The original goal for #1129 (ViewSpecDSL_test) is impossible to accomplish,
at least within our existing test framework. Thus I'll limit myself to coding
a clean-room integration test with purely synthetic DSL definitions and mock widgets
My understanding is that in the standard use case, we precisely know what to expect
and just go ahead and perform the conversion. Thus it is pointless to introduce
fine grained distinctions. When the access fails, this always indicates some broken
application logic, and just raises an error.
With this solution, somewhere deep down within the implementation
the knowledge about the actual result type would be encoded into
the embedded VTable within a lib::variant. At interface level,
ther will be a double dispatch based on that result type
and the desired result type, leading either to a successful
access or an error response.
Problem is, we can not even compile the conversion in the "other branch".
Thus we need to find some way to pick the suitable branch at compile time.
Quite similar to the solution found for binding Rec<GenNode> onto a typed Tuple
...reduce immediate coupling, since we do not really now what actions ElementAccess
will actually perform, and this is likely to remain this way for some time.
So just let it sit there are an on-demand dependency.
Moreover, create an (empty placeholder) implementation within WindowLocator.
So everything is set now for the actual implementation to be filled in
Attempt to find my way back to the point
where the digression regarding dependency-injection started.
As it turns out, this was a valuable digression, since we can rid ourselves
from lots of ad-hoc functionality, which basically does in a shitty way
what DependencyFactory now provides as standard solution
FIRST STEP is to expose the Navigator as generic "LocationQuery" service
through lib::Depend<LocationQuery>
from now on, we'll have dedicated individual translation units (*cpp)
for each distinct interface proxy. All of these will include the
interfaceproxy.hpp, which now holds the boilerplate part of the code
and *must not be included* in anything else than interfac proxy
translation units. The reason is, we now *definie* (with external linkage)
implementations of the facade::Link ctor and dtor for each distinct
type of interface proxy. This allows to decouple the proxy definition code
from the service implementation code (which is crucial for plug-ins
like the GUI)
The recently rewritten lib::Depend front-end for service dependencies,
together with the configuration as lib::DependInject::ServiceInstance
provides all the necessary features and is even threadsafe.
Beyond that, the expectation is that also the instantiation of the
interface proxies can be simplified. The proxies themselves however
need to be hand-written as before
SingletonRef was only invented because lib::Depend (or lib::Singleton at that time)
offered only on-demand initialisation, but could not attach to an external service.
But this is required for calling out at the implementation side of a
Lumiera Interface into the actual service implementation.
The recently created DependInject::ServiceInstance now fulfils this task way better
and is seamlessly integrated into the lib::Depend front-end
