On Dec 16, 2006, at 2:52 PM, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Plans Casal David wrote:
On 14 Dec 2006, at 18:18, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
I propose moving the IEM GUI objects that are embedded in Pd
into the "extra" folder, compiled as individual files.
What's the advantage of doing that?
Separation of Concerns:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_concerns
Separation of language, content, and presentation has to be a good
move, no?
but the IEMGUIs, like the rest of the Pd GUIs, are part of the
language. You can't remove them without breaking the code. If they
were just presentation, you could slice them away and the patch
would run the same. If you want to separate concerns, what you want
to slice away is the t_widgetbehavior section of each of Pd's GUI
classes (including that of objectboxes, messageboxes, floatboxes,
symbolboxes, patchers, arrays, ...).
The only project that slices away t_widgetbehavior, and thus
separate Pd's presentation from Pd's language/content, is called
DesireData. The feature doesn't have much to do with namespacing
and classloaders: if you want another reimplementation of Pd's GUI
that does separation of concerns, you will spend 1% of the effort
on getting the thing to load in place of the original classes, and
99% on making sure that it works like the original classes.
The IEMGUIs were not originally part of the core, they were added
later. They originally existed as a separate lib. I have a working
version of Pd with the iemguis as externals, so I don't see the
"breaking the code" part, especially considering that I didn't change
the code, except for adding properly named setup functions and
removed the files from the makefile
.hc
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mistrust authority - promote decentralization. - the hacker ethic
_______________________________________________
PD-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
