Subject: Re: Scripting, formal docs and reliability
From: Mike Nordell (tamlin@algonet.se)
Date: Sun Jan 28 2001 - 01:10:03 CST
Martin Sevior wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Jan 2001, Mike Nordell wrote:
> > But, look at our current design. Do *you* know how to "just hook in"
this
> > scripting engine and make it work? I don't think so.
>
> Actually Mike this is in place already, just waiting for us to make use of
> it. All of the functions in EditMethods are static functions and they all
> collected into a nice class that allows access to via a string
> variable with the name of the function. You get a pointer to the
> function in return.
That I didn't know (and I thought I knew AW at least reasonably well). What
baffles me is if we have such a nice input mechanism is that we use such a
blunt tool as the View to handle the input. As its name implies, it's to
display the document and that's about it.
> Well certainly fv_View is an overloaded term. It is not really a view onto
> the model, it's more of a interface between the input methods and the
> controller.
It's unfortunately even more than that... It contains *lots* of
functionality that would really be in the document. Not to mention our
*horrible* "addListener" that doesn't "just" add a listener. It's about as
intuitive as pressing the Windows Start button to perform a Shutdown.
> Do you have a specfic proposal to split fv_View into
> different classes?
Well of course. What do you think of me? ;->
My cursor class was the first attempt. Unfortunately I just displayed the
interface and (working, but not suitable for consumption) skeleton code
(though the "cursor" I really believed was "right"). I didn't get the needed
feedback right then why it hasn't yet been implemented.
I could probably whip something together in a few days, but we still have
some serious problems where the document doesn't supply its own operations
and *that* would take more than a few days I think, even if we had 36-hrs
days without need to sleep.
But, would it be really useful at this moment since we have public class
variables all over the place, subclasses that initialize *baseclass*
variables and such? Perhaps it would be, but perhaps it would only create a
*greater* mess. I think we should start by giving the document (class)
appropriate operations. Until that's done I think the rest is just in vain.
I might be wrong though, I have been known to be wrong, from time to time...
(rewrite of C3PO about R2D2)
> It seems to me that the interfaces we need for scripting are in place and
> that it is just lack of time that has prevented their exploitation.
After looking a bit more at it, I think it "soemewhat" fits the bill, though
I'm not sure yet how inserts of chars, strings and clipboard are to be.
> This was another of those "gee those SourceGear guys were smart"
> discoveries for me.
If they were *that* smart, wouldn't we be at 1.2 now? :-)
/Mike - don't.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Sun Jan 28 2001 - 01:19:59 CST