Hi On 08/31/2016 04:12 PM, Patrick Valsecchi wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 1:20 PM, Matthias Kuhn <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > On 08/31/2016 12:41 PM, Nyall Dawson wrote: > > Just to clarify - are you proposing that only a map of widget > > configuration is moved to core? I'd say the representValue function > > for each widget should also should be moved across, otherwise we'll > > end up with multiple code paths reimplementing the logic from each > > widget + plugins having to redo this themselves. > > Good point, > > that will also be nice to have in core. > > In this case we'll end up with two registries and two factories > (although only a few widgets will need core functionality). > Or did you have a different idea in mind? > > > > That would force the plugin writters to provide two plugins:
Not really, you can add two register calls in one plugin. > I do agree that representValue would be useful in core, but that has > some cost to split the thing in two. Or maybe reprensent value is > something totally different from the widgets for editing the fields and > they don't have to be in 1-1 relation. As long as there is no representValue() method (most of the widgets actually) I don't think the core part is required and just some generic default module can handle this. Matthias _______________________________________________ Qgis-developer mailing list [email protected] List info: http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer Unsubscribe: http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
