On Fri, 2006-12-08 at 13:13 +0100, Tim Janik wrote: > On Fri, 1 Dec 2006, Damon Chaplin wrote: > > > On Tue, 2006-11-28 at 14:53 +0100, Tim Janik wrote: > >> Hey all, > >> > >> this is a proposal for allowing pluggable widget types and implementations, > >> assorted bug report: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=356864 > > > > How about a sort of widget/object factory? > > > > So you'd set the default implementation for a type: > > gtk_object_factory_set_default_implementation (factory, > > GTK_TYPE_LABEL, > > MY_CUSTOM_LABEL_TYPE); > > > > And then in the widget/object xxx_new() functions instead of calling > > g_object_new() they call: > > gtk_object_factory_create (factory, GTK_TYPE_LABEL, ...); > > that sounds much like the alternative GFactory i suggested in > another reply: > http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gtk-devel-list/2006-November/msg00133.html
Yes, I missed half of the discussion somehow. > > Applications could then use different sets of widgets for different > > parts of the interface, just by switching the default factory: > > gtk_set_default_object_factory (factory); > > the only differences i see are that you didn't introduce the factory at > GLib level, and that you seem to advocate multiple factories. > i'm not quite sure why though, can you give more concrete examples on > why i would want to switch factories at all? I don't have any specific examples. I just thought using a factory was a more flexible approach - better than adding XXX_appoint_type() functions for each widget. Damon _______________________________________________ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list