By applying a Diff, the children of some timeline element (track) may be re-ordered.
This imposes specific problems, since these elements hold onto slave-Widgets,
which are already attached into some elaborated and nested widget structure.
To keep complexity under control, we can not allow the TrackPresenter to have
any knowledge regarding the implementation structure of these target widgets.
Thus I am pondering the idea to represent that relation as an abstracted ViewHook link
Especially note the tricks we need to play in order to allow for (limited) usage of CSS3 box-shadows.
The reason is, all these CSS3 effects are rendered in one shot and combinend on the StyleContext::render_background() call
Thus we need to ensure that the background is properly aligned with the frames
- at some (yet to be defined) location, a virtual WidgetPath is constructed
and used to build a Gtk::StyleContext in accordance to the curren CSS
- within the drawing routine, we use Lumiera's Advice-System to access this info
- most notably the NOBUG logging flags have been renamed now
- but for the configuration, I'll stick to "GUI" for now,
since "Stage" would be bewildering for an occasional user
- in a similar vein, most documentation continues to refer to the GUI
same pattern as the existing EntryID, i.e. a human readable symbol plus a hash
but the hash is just random, instead of deriving it from the symbol text.
Use case is when we explicitly need a distinct identity, even when the
human readable symbolic name is the same. Actual example: the fork root in the timeline
the solution idea is to use a helper frame, and an "anchor functor",
which is passed down from the respective parent context, and which
does the actual work of injecting the child widgets at the apropriate
position within the parent display.
This is an obsolete feature, since the JavaScript engine in modern browsers
is way faster than it used to be, and people are accustomed to some loading time
due to all those "single page applications".
I haven't seen this splash screen even on the old Firefox for quite some time;
moreover, the TiddlyWiki 2.9.1 now displays a "JavaScript is required" alert
anyway, so there is really no need for all this messing around.
The (very old and long abandoned) SplashScreenPlugin
was written in a very hackish style, as it injected a <div> with the splash screen into the <head> tag.
In those olde days when evil reigned, browsers just happily displayed such documents.
But our new gem, Firefox Quantum, now "sanitises" such a malformed document
by closing the Head right before the <div> and relocating the opening BODY tag
to this place. Which then causes the TiddlyWiki self-modification routine
to flounder, because the opening body tag is now in the middle of a "markup area",
which is replaced by existing tiddler content (in this case the "MarkupPreHead" tiddler).
So we end up without an opening Body tag, and this is what we save -- Resulting in a corrupted wiki!
The obvious fix is to use the MarkupPreBody instead
Firefox Quantum adopted the idiotic behaviour of Chrome and does no longer
retrieve Cookies for pages read from local file system. It stores the Cookie
data into its local cookies.sqlite, but it does not retrieve it anymore.
For aledged "security reasons", however it happily retrieves HTML 5 web storage
Since TiddlyWiki classic just accesses the document.cookie at 3 points,
it is easy to patch around that problem. Just check, if we're using a modern
browser with support for HTML5 web storage and branch accordingly.
Basically, TiddlyWiki "classic" is in maintenance mode, but it is still supported.
This minor upgarde brings some bugfixes, most notably a minor adjustment to work well
with the new Firefox Quantum, which switched to the more restricted WebExtensions
and discontinued support for the old-style XUL based plug-ins.
This bold move by the firefox project placed a lot of well established, mature
extensions on the brink of extinction. Especially TiddlyWiki has gradually lost
its original appeal of a low-ceremony guerrilla wiki. However, it is still
a sweet little gem for experienced users, albeit a bit brittle to use.
You are now either
- forced to enter the target destination on each save
- or forced to arrange tiddly wiki to reside within your default download folder
and use a firefox plug-in to automate the save process (I use at the moment
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-GB/firefox/addon/file-backups/
- or forced to install a 100 MB blurb of java-script based local server
to run TiddlyWikiDesktop
The bitter irony of the situation is, what still works more-or-less painless
is to place your TiddlyWiki into the cloud. Yikes, here we go.
This involves a fundamental decision about how to build structures in the Lumiera UI:
They shall be solely created in response to diff messages. Which leads us to
introduce a new (and quite challenging) concept: the »DiffConstituent«
This marks start of actual work on this fundamental task.
Extensive planning from 2016 is available, together with an almost
complete diff binding for the entities involved into timeline display.
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.
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
- activation signal is a facility offered and used solely by Gtk::Application
- we do not need nor want an Gtk::Application, we deal with our own application
concerns as we see fit.
...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
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
- polish the text in the TiddlyWiki
- integrate some new pages in the published documentation
Still mostly placeholder text with some indications
- fill in the relevant sections in the overview document
- adjust, expand and update the Doxygen comments
TODO: could convert the TiddlyWiki page to Asciidoc and
publish it mostly as-is. Especially the nice benchmarks
from yesterday :-D
This is essentially the solution we used since start of the Lumiera project.
This solution is not entirely correct in theory, because the assignment to the
instance pointer can be visible prior to releasing the Mutex -- so another thread
might see a partially initialised object
_not_ using the dependency factory, rather direct access
- to a shared object in the enclosing stack frame
- to a heap allocated existing object accessed through uniqe_ptr
This is a tricky problem an an immediate consequence of the dynamic configuration
favoured by this design. We avoid a centralised configuration and thus there
are no automatic rules to enforce consistency. It would thus be possible
to start using a dependency in singleton style, but to switch to service
style later, after the fact.
An attempt was made to prevent such a mismatch by static initialisiation;
basically the presence of any Depend<SRV>::ServiceInstance<X> would disable
any usage of Depend<SRV> in singleton style. However, such a mechanism
was found to be fragile at best. It seems more apropriate just to fail
when establishing a ServiceInstance on a dependency already actively in
use (and to lock usage after destroying the ServiceInstance).
This issue is considered rather an architectural one, which can not be
solved by any mechanism at implementation level ever
