← Back to team overview

kicad-developers team mailing list archive

Re: Plot and drill file generation via scripts


A note: swig can be teached to capture C++ exceptions and convert back to python , try:

grep try *.i

Enviado desde un móvil

El 04/05/2013, a las 18:57, Lorenzo Marcantonio <l.marcantonio@xxxxxxxxxxxx> escribió:

> On Sat, May 04, 2013 at 12:22:55PM -0400, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
>> gate keeping object to prevent coupling.  We will never be able to
>> factor out the board (or schematic) code into a dso/dll until we
>> start being disciplined enough to prevent this kind of coupling.  I
>> think this really gets to the heart of the matter of what we as a
>> team should be trying to resolve.
> Well, that's a policy issue... instead of separate function he proposed
> functions in another class, so the temptation to do the thing 'here and
> now' remains. The separation of concerns would be always a little
> subjective: is this only for processing into the dialog or can be useful
> for the script layer too? The risk is bloating the proxy classes.
>> I just took a quit look at pcbplot.cpp and I already see a problem.
>> The separate function EnsureOuputDirectory() takes a pointer to a
>> wxTextCtrl.  It is called from within the PLOT_CONTROLLER object
>> function OpenPlotFile() which means that the PLOT_CONTROLLER object
>> cannot be compiled and linked without including the wxWidgets UI
>> code. I'm not trying to single out anybody but this kind of
>> procedural code exists throughout KiCad.  That being said, using a
> Yes, I know that. During the plotting work I decoupled some things and
> not other and I probably didn't even knew about the REPORTER stuff. In
> fact that function should not be in the pcbplot file but somewhere else
> (do we have something for 'file utilities', maybe?). It is a known bug
> that that call could silently fail:(( give me a way to kick back an
> exception or something to both python and the rest of pcbnew and I'll
> fix it, however I don't think there is an infrastructure for it (or does
> it exists?)
>> proxy object does not guarantee that coupling cannot happen within
>> the proxy object.  However, if your writing a proxy object you
>> should be aware that one of the goals of this object is to prevent
>> coupling.
> I prefer proxy functions (when there is no state) but the idea is that,
> exactly.
>> A simple solution for this problem above is to use the REPORTER
>> object in place of the wxTextCtrl object to hide the UI access.
>> This way the PLOT_CONTROLLER object could be built without any
>> direct knowledge of wxTextCtrl.  This solution is not as elegant or
>> robust as using an action object but it does solve UI object
>> coupling problem.
> Wait a minute, I have to look at the code:D Ah OK, I remembered wrong,
> it's used for the output messages. Yes, I agree that something like the
> reporter object would be the right thing to use here.
>> I don't see the need for a board action object to have a huge
>> interface.  Take a look at the wxCommand object.  This object is
>> conceptually similar to Dick's proposed ACTION object and only has
>> four functions in it's interface.  If you want to see how wxCommand
> *If* the action object is like that, I agree with Dick, is a command
> pattern (I did a similar example, I didn't know wx already had that).
> The command need state do ensure undoability, so it's correctly some
> kind of object; since our undo implementation works in another way,
> *most* command don't need an implementation.
> However Dick said this:
> DICK SAID> If they are not in one class, this makes the mix-in tougher
> DICK SAID> back up at the PCB_BASE_FRAME.  You end up with 2,3,4
> DICK SAID> classes, each holding a BOARD*, and each being mixed in via
> DICK SAID> multiple inheritance?  Instead of one class.
> This make me think (perhaps incorrectly!) that he meant to do a whole
> huge blob class containing all the actions for a board and mix it in
> just to not having to pass a board pointer. If that's not his idea,
> please excuse me. At the time I tought that the mixin was a strategy to
> 'ease' migrating things from the frame to the action classes (in
> a properly designed system the mixin shouldn't be needed).
>> This simple object is used as a proxy to decouple the document (in
>> our case the BOARD) from the view (UI elements).  There doesn't have
>> to be view to use this object so it can safely be instantiated and
>> called from the command line or from scripting languages when the UI
>> is not present.  If we were using the wxWidgets doc/view framework,
> Agree 100%, I already used similar approaches (both in OO and in
> functional code) and it works fine (in our line of work we do *a lot*
> of RPC thru various communication channels, so the transition from
> a command from a serial port to a command object is very natural).
> Having to derive a class for each command is a little nuisance so, if
> possible, I'd like to avoid the 'pure' command pattern. If you decide on
> a command class hierarchy however I have nothing against it, it's just
> my personal preference (C++11 seems to support some kind of closure, but
> probably the world is not ready for that:D)
>> wxCommand would by us do/undo support with having to write our own
>> do/undo framework.  I am not suggesting we convert to the wxWidgets
>> doc/view framework or use wxCommand.  I am just using this as an
>> example of how decoupling it can be achieved without a huge object
>> interface.
> If you have a Save object/function, a Load object/function, a MoveTrack
> object/function and so on I agree it's a good idea. However from Dick's
> mail I had the impression he was proposing something else, like a big
> class containing *all* of these methods (again I'm excusing for the
> misunderstanding, if that's the case).
> Probably we are each one just proposing some variation of the same
> technique and there is only a communication gap:D
> -- 
> Lorenzo Marcantonio
> Logos Srl
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> Post to     : kicad-developers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp