elementary-dev-community team mailing list archive

[Daniel Foré <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I wouldn't think we purposely want to have nested popovers. That just seems odd to me. 

Best Regards,
Daniel Foré

www.elementaryos.org

On Jan 10, 2012, at 2:21 PM, Christian Dywan <christian@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Am 10.01.2012 20:38, schrieb Cassidy James:
>> Better contractor integration: we have a stub of methods for that, but we may need some widgets, some docs, etc...
> For what I want, widgets can always be added. So I wouldn't rush in half-baked code. They could start to be written just after release.
>> PopOvers debugging: I think there is not a lot of bugs for the popovers, excepted the bug of double PopOvers (if you try to put a popover in a                     popover, it behaves oddly). API checks are needed here too. And non-compositing detection (to fallback                     to a basic dialog).
> Is nested popover expected to be a valid use case or do you mean it should issue a warning?
>> Introduce a Granite.Init function? It might be needed in the future, so, having it now may be better. It could be used to detect the compositing for instance, or whatever.
> If you ask me, do implicit initialization. That's what WebKit does. That's what GIO does (remember the threading API thread). And Gtk.Application though not a mere function, implicitly initializes GTK+.
>> License changes: do we want to switch to a LGPL base?
> That point feels like a déjà-vu, though I may be confusing something. I have a vague memory of this being the decided plan already.
> -- 
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~elementary-dev-community
> Post to     : elementary-dev-community@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~elementary-dev-community
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp