On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 4:22 PM, Paul Natsuo Kishimoto < [email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-06-11 at 13:24 +0200, Bertrand Rousseau wrote: > > Le 11/06/10 13:18, Luca Invernizzi a écrit : > > > On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 9:53 AM, Lionel Dricot<[email protected]> > wrote: > > >> Hi all, > > >> > > >> Today I've merged Paul's code reorganisation. > > Only the first of many parts! Thanks :) > > Next up is the CLI. > > > >> I've one comment : > > >> > > >> - the dbus was moved into GTK. I believe that it should not. Instead, > > >> there should still be a "view manager" that would be UI agnostic and > > >> contains the DBus interface. > > >> > > >> Any UI, should have to register itself to that view manager and > implement > > >> a given interface so that, when the viewmanager says "open task X", it > > >> does. > > >> > > >> > > >> What do you think ? > > > I agree. We could have a view-manager for each UI, and a > > > meta-view-manager that just acts as a proxy to the current VM. > > > Registering a ui means registering its VM to the meta-VM. > > > > Just my 2 cents... > > > > Is it me or the "viewmanager" is actually the controler in an MVC model > > perspective? In this case, couldn't we just name this file after this > > naming scheme? It would be more directly identifiable. > > That was how I thought of it, too. If we rename, I would just call it > GtkUI and put it in GTG/gtk/__init__.py. > > At risk of stating the obvious, the extent to which we want to provide > shared code that is common to *all* UIs depends on what those UIs *are*. > Currently: > > * GTK > * Command-line > * Web > * (Could there be more? Maybe a Qt UI?) > > Anyway, the three are very different. For the example "the ViewManager > says 'Open Task X'," I can't imagine how that would be useful for the > CLI or Web interface. > > Also, once the client-server split is accomplished, if actions against > the server are atomic, then (in theory) all three UIs should be able to > access the server simultaneously without anyone (i.e. a MetaViewManager) > needing to keep track of them. > > We already realized that the current DBus interface will need to be > split in at least two, and that will indeed happen. One part for the > server. Maybe the second part should be for *GTK* UI specifically, > instead of "the UI" abstractly. > I agree with Paul. With a properly done (atomic) dbus interface, there should be no need for a server-side meta view manager, or any registration of the interfaces. I guess we could do it if we wanted to give higher privileges to the UIs, as opposed to the other applications that access gtg tasks using dbus (i.e. docky), but I don't see the need for that. > -- > Paul Kishimoto > MASc candidate (2010), Flight Systems & Control Group > University of Toronto Institute for Aerospace Studies (UTIAS) > > http://paul.kishimoto.name — +19053029315 > > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list: > https://launchpad.net/~gtg-contributors<https://launchpad.net/%7Egtg-contributors> > Post to : [email protected] > Unsubscribe : > https://launchpad.net/~gtg-contributors<https://launchpad.net/%7Egtg-contributors> > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > >
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~gtg-contributors Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~gtg-contributors More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
