On 04/12/2013 12:28 AM, Lorenzo Marcantonio wrote: > On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 04:11:51PM -0500, Dick Hollenbeck wrote: > >> No, I don't agree, since it is behind an interface and only accessors use it. > > My question could be rephrased as: there is a need to put colours in the board > interface? > >> Its the guy in the stair well walking on his hands, allowed to do weird >> stuff as long as >> it is not public. > > Sorry but I don't get this... > >> Because we are talking about supporting more than one board in the editor >> *concurrently* >> in the foreseeable future, we have to be careful about what is done here on >> improving the >> color "interface". > > Then by design it's correct to have it as a board member; I completely > agree (see also my other post). > > The original question was about the design, to decide if that > implementation should be kept or not; with this design the > implementation io OK. > > BTW why simply don't have two pcbnew instances with different boards > loaded? once you fix the clipboard and crossprobing code I think it > should be enough.
The plans are to move to a single process model, where pcbnew is a DLL/DSO and it will be utlilized to hold more than one BOARD concurrently. This means anything BOARD specific will need to go in or be associated with a BOARD. Globals can remain globals, with an understanding that something global then pertains to more than one BOARD concurrently. _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
