On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 09:53:40AM -0500, Dick Hollenbeck wrote: > After more thought, and a long walk, I like it even more. I guess you are > talking putting > full featured board actions or procedural handlers in the tool also? This > opens up the > architecture quite a bit to extensions and is an outstanding idea Tom.
I only have one thing to say: please take care to not mix the model and the view/controller... sanity check: could the same operation be done from the scripting interface without calling the tool UI stuff? if not, some refactoring could be useful. > I still think the frame is the best place for that data, if it cross-tool, > else of course > in the tool. For the data in the frame, maybe try and put the accessors in > the base class > tool. And declare that class a friend of the frame. This at least keeps > the interface > to the data clean, the tools really don't have to know where such frame > resident data is. 100% agree on that. 'General' display/control stuff IMHO should reside in the frame, unless it's some board-related preference: what is where is debatable and subject to a design decision; example: the aux origin is undeniably on the board, but should, say, the grid be tied to the board or to the view? I think that these doubt should be cleared thinking on 'what about if we could have two views on the same board' (which, incidentally, could be a good feature in the far future) -- Lorenzo Marcantonio Logos Srl _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
