Hi; On Sat, 2008-02-23 at 19:16 -0500, Havoc Pennington wrote: > Hi, > > I moved things to http://bugzilla.o-hand.com/show_bug.cgi?id=815 > and have my work-in-progress patch on there.
This looks very similar to what ebassi originally had but done via an (optional) interface rather than large-ish modifications to clutter actor itself. Idealy this is a better route imho if its really possible and layouts really belong at the level of Clutter - Im not totally convinced it possible to have something completely generic and far reaching so core. I'll try my best to explain concerns. My worry is it really moves clutter into being much more like a desktop toolkit like GTK and thus ultimately limiting as we are aiming Clutter to be much more 'freeform' and non consistent. It essentially just composites 2D layers in 3D space and makes that as easy as possible without imposing any hard rules. But it should allow specific rules to be built on top of it for whatever use case your want. Understand Im coming at clutter from Macromedia Director perspective where is really is really no such thing as automatic layouts. Now clutter actors have properties like min/max/natural sizes we are imposing rules and making it harder and more complex to actually implement actor subclasses. In some use cases it makes sense but Im not so sure the common case. Its much better imho if this can go as an optional interface (above clutter) and if this is not implemented by an actor the layout just decides whats best for its particular use case, i.e if it lets it overflow or it clips it. Or even the higher level toolkit using Clutter simply has a base 'widget' Class above ClutterActor which has the specific layout code. Another angle is ultimately with clutter we want to be able to embed higher level toolkit in it - so in terms of heavy layout it would be done there. What kind of use cases (in terms of applications) are you thinking about as to need this kind of core layout code ? Are you really thinking about Clutter being used in applications where there top level surface is reszied at run time and thus this kind of layout handling is needed ? Sorry for delay in replying here, was at FOSDEM and though I caught the mail laptop battery/network availability prevented me from replying sooner. Many thanks; == Matthew -- To unsubscribe send a mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
