gtg-contributors team mailing list archive

[Paul Natsuo Kishimoto <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 2010-06-11 at 13:24 +0200, Bertrand Rousseau wrote:
> Le 11/06/10 13:18, Luca Invernizzi a écrit :
> > On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 9:53 AM, Lionel Dricot<ploum@xxxxxxxxx>  wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> Today I've merged Paul's code reorganisation.

  Only the first of many parts! Thanks :)

  Next up is the CLI.

> >> I've one comment :
> >>
> >> - the dbus was moved into GTK. I believe that it should not. Instead,
> >> there should still be a "view manager" that would be UI agnostic and
> >> contains the DBus interface.
> >>
> >> Any UI, should have to register itself to that view manager and implement
> >> a given interface so that, when the viewmanager says "open task X", it
> >> does.
> >>
> >>
> >> What do you think ?
> > I agree. We could have a view-manager for each UI, and a
> > meta-view-manager that just acts as a proxy to the current VM.
> > Registering a ui means registering its VM to the meta-VM.
> 
> Just my 2 cents...
> 
> Is it me or the "viewmanager" is actually the controler in an MVC model 
> perspective? In this case, couldn't we just name this file after this 
> naming scheme? It would be more directly identifiable.

  That was how I thought of it, too. If we rename, I would just call it
GtkUI and put it in GTG/gtk/__init__.py.

  At risk of stating the obvious, the extent to which we want to provide
shared code that is common to *all* UIs depends on what those UIs *are*.
Currently:

      * GTK
      * Command-line
      * Web
      * (Could there be more? Maybe a Qt UI?)

  Anyway, the three are very different. For the example "the ViewManager
says 'Open Task X'," I can't imagine how that would be useful for the
CLI or Web interface.

  Also, once the client-server split is accomplished, if actions against
the server are atomic, then (in theory) all three UIs should be able to
access the server simultaneously without anyone (i.e. a MetaViewManager)
needing to keep track of them.

  We already realized that the current DBus interface will need to be
split in at least two, and that will indeed happen. One part for the
server. Maybe the second part should be for *GTK* UI specifically,
instead of "the UI" abstractly.

-- 
Paul Kishimoto
MASc candidate (2010), Flight Systems & Control Group
University of Toronto Institute for Aerospace Studies (UTIAS)

http://paul.kishimoto.name — +19053029315

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part