PanelLocator is a sub component of the WindowLocator (top-level GUI service).
Eventually this shall become a mere widget/component access service, with the
actual lookup and allocation logic layered on top through ViewLocator, configurable
via ViewSpec-DSL.
We can not implement the full scheme right now, since we're lacking knowledge
about internals of a typical Lumiera UI widget
This is only a premature hack, since the whole structure of PanelManager is somewhat broken.
Moreover, the ViewLocator is not really ready for use yet, so this hack at least
allows us to "reach into" a top-level window and "grab" the pannel we need.
* 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.
Greedy wildcard match .+ is unnecessary, since in case of a positive match,
the next given expression always follows immediately. We just want to skip
over some "syntactic noise"
This change makes the matching time linear in the size of the log.
But unfortunately, I still occasionally see an Segmentation Fault.
It seems to arise when compiling the regular expresions
e.g. the following RegExps cashed (right in the middle of the test)
after.+?_ATTRIBS_.+?ins.+?53 of 57 ≺358.gen010≻.+?mut.+?53 of 57 ≺358.gen010≻.+?ins.+?borgID.+?358.+?emu.+?53 of 57 ≺358.gen010≻
after.+?_ATTRIBS_.+?ins.+?53 of 63 ≺178.gen028≻.+?mut.+?53 of 63 ≺178.gen028≻.+?ins.+?borgID.+?178.+?emu.+?53 of 63 ≺178.gen028≻
after.+?_ATTRIBS_.+?ins.+?53 of 59 ≺498.gen038≻.+?mut.+?53 of 59 ≺498.gen038≻.+?ins.+?borgID.+?498.+?emu.+?53 of 59 ≺498.gen038≻
after.+?_ATTRIBS_.+?ins.+?53 of 60 ≺223.gen003≻.+?mut.+?53 of 60 ≺223.gen003≻.+?ins.+?borgID.+?223.+?emu.+?53 of 60 ≺223.gen003≻
after.+?_ATTRIBS_.+?ins.+?53 of 78 ≺121.gen015≻.+?mut.+?53 of 78 ≺121.gen015≻.+?ins.+?borgID.+?121.+?emu.+?53 of 78 ≺121.gen015≻
right now this will just end up in the log, since not even the
notification display is implemented beyond the GuiNotification-facade.
Anyway, we get some kind of communication now for real, in the actual application
...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
- 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.
Gio::Application holds a signal_activation(), which seems to be used for
precisely that task we need here: to do something right after the UI is operative
...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
this is a (hopefully just temporary) workaround to deal with static initialisation
ordering problems. The original solution was cleaner from a code readability viewpoint,
however, when lib::Depend was used from static initialisation code, it could
be observed that the factory constructor was invoked after first use.
And while this did not interfer with the instance lifecycle management itself,
because the zero-initialisation of the instance (atomic) pointer did happen
beforehand, it would discard any special factory functions installed from such
a context (and this counts as bug for my taste).
indicates rather questionable behaviour.
The standard demands a templated static field to be defined before first odr-use.
IIRC, it even demands a static field to be initialised prior to use in a ctor.
But here the definition of the templated static member field is dropped off even after
the definition of another static field, which uses the (templated) Front-end-class
in its initialiser.
The boost::hash documentation does not mention a significant change in that area,
yet the frequent collisions on identifiers with number suffix do not occur anymore
in Boost 1.65
