Re: [Gnome-devtools] Recent gIDE changes

[Dave Camp <dave helixcode com>]

> 
> > Replacing the editor required these major changes:
> > 
> > * I removed all of the editor code from gIDE.  This
> > included things like
> > the highlighting, text widgets, and all of the
> > gI_document.c
> > implementation code.  This also meant deriving
> > GideDocument from a
> > different base class.
> 
> I guess the preferences should be updated too, but I
> suggest leaving that for now. The preferences stuff
> should be totally rewritten anyway.

I took out the preferences code for text editing.  

> 
> > * Moved gI_text functions into gI_document.  This
> > split was really
> > somewhat artificial, and made no sense with the new
> > code.  So
> > gI_text.[ch] are now obsolete.
> 
> It was not artificial; it was meant to ease the
> porting to a different editor. If all the
> functionality to change text is now present in the
> bonobo interface (which I doubt) there is no need for
> it anymore, but if it isn't then I think there is
> still justification to keep it.
...
> That's what I thought. So there is a need to keep
> gI_text.c: it should contain the implementation of the
> text handling functions. Those should not be in
> gI_document.



> 
> > * The plugins should be reworked to do their own
> > menu merging with the
> > new bonobo UI code.
> > 
> > * It should be possible to write plugins as CORBA
> > objects rather than C
> > code/gmodules.
> 
> What is Gnumeric going to do about this? The plugin
> system was re-used from them. It would be cool to have
> all plugin-type programs use the same plugin
> interface, so people would only have to write similar
> plugins once. But then again, that wouldn't be plugins
> anymore... Needs more thought.

I don't know anything about how gnumeric is going to
handle this... JP, comments?


> > * The code should be scanned again to make sure that
> > nothing is trying
> > to treat a GideDocument as a
> > GtkEditable/GtkEditor/GtkSCText.
> 
> I already did that for the gtk-editor branch, but it
> was never merged :-(

ok.  Well, I think I got most of it out, but I might 
have missed something.


> Call me crazy, but shouldn't that be
>   char* text = gI_document_get_chars(document, 0,
> gI_document_get_length(document))? Looks a wee bit
> more efficient to me :)

You're crazy :)  If you're going through the entire 
document, that's probably more efficient.  However
that chunk of code came from a "delete until end of
line" routine.  In that case it would be horribly 
inefficient to read the entire text buffer across 
the wire.  So basically these functions need to be 
looked at individually to decide what the best way
is.