On 13 May 2010 10:04, Szabolcs Nagy <nszabo...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 5/12/10, Rory Rory <tirar...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> Right now it's not obvious what the widgets actually are. The >> textboxes look identical to the buttons and it's hard to know where to >> type into. > > don't care about the visual representation > that's the last thing you wish to design > > the question is if the programming model is simple and powerful enough > > * there is "box" and "event" > * each box has an event handler and that's the only thing that > determines the behaviour of the box (visual behaviour and internal > state). > * the event handler gets called with events that occured over the area > of the box. > * there is no parent/child of a box so you cannot pass events around > (as in most toolkits), you have to handle or ignore them > * the area of a box is determined by the toolkit, only the box layout > should be described (boxes per rows), so not just fixed resolution > pixel based representation is possible > > btw if there is strictly one window per application (the container of > boxes) then the window can be a global variable, you don't have to > pass it around in every swk function and struct.
I agree, SwkWindow could be removed from the signatures and be declared as global. Apart from that I agree with the question you raise and I don't have the answer either yet. I agreed with pancake that we go with this approach in the beginning to get a feeling if it's right. I think this thread is supposed to gain further insight and opinions from others as well. The main question is if the box/event model is right. Cheers, Anselm
