Re: Pluggable widget types and implementations

[Damon Chaplin <damon karuna uklinux net>]

On Fri, 2006-12-08 at 13:13 +0100, Tim Janik wrote: 
> On Fri, 1 Dec 2006, Damon Chaplin wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 2006-11-28 at 14:53 +0100, Tim Janik wrote:
> >> Hey all,
> >>
> >> this is a proposal for allowing pluggable widget types and implementations,
> >> assorted bug report: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=356864
> >
> > How about a sort of widget/object factory?
> >
> > So you'd set the default implementation for a type:
> >  gtk_object_factory_set_default_implementation (factory,
> >                                                 GTK_TYPE_LABEL,
> >                                                 MY_CUSTOM_LABEL_TYPE);
> >
> > And then in the widget/object xxx_new() functions instead of calling
> > g_object_new() they call:
> >  gtk_object_factory_create (factory, GTK_TYPE_LABEL, ...);
> 
> that sounds much like the alternative GFactory i suggested in 
> another reply:
>    http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gtk-devel-list/2006-November/msg00133.html

Yes, I missed half of the discussion somehow.


> > Applications could then use different sets of widgets for different
> > parts of the interface, just by switching the default factory:
> >  gtk_set_default_object_factory (factory);
> 
> the only differences i see are that you didn't introduce the factory at 
> GLib level, and that you seem to advocate multiple factories.
> i'm not quite sure why though, can you give more concrete examples on
> why i would want to switch factories at all?

I don't have any specific examples. I just thought using a factory was a
more flexible approach - better than adding XXX_appoint_type() functions
for each widget.

Damon