Abdelrazak Younes wrote: > Andre Poenitz wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 07, 2006 at 09:39:13AM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: >>>> Shouldn't there be a lyxkernel.dll and the frontend using this? >>> The frontend virtual interface yes. The qt4 frontend will just be an >>> implementation of this interface and could entirely be in a single >>> dll. This way the lyx-executable would not even have to link to Qt4, >>> only the qt4 frontend dll. >> >> I am not sure there needs to be a virtual frontend interface at all. > > If we want to support multiple frontends with a seemingly consistent > behaviour, I'm afraid that's the only way to go for now. Besides, the > virtual interface is accompanied with methods that allow to encapsulate > code that should be common to all frontends (WorkArea, Clipboard). >
Yes, we need a virtual frontend interface to support multiple toolkits, but the virtual functions are not needed by the kernel, it doesn't know the frontend (in a mvc design). >> >> In theory, ther kernel could be completely ignorant of any frontend and >> just signal internal changes. > > In theory yes ;-) At least we should head to this behaviour. > > >> >> A frontend would directly call into the kernel to make things happen and >> adjust afterwards by listening to the signals. >> >> IMO a common frontend base is a design mistake that puts things downside >> up: The kernel tells the frontend to draw and listen to events from the >> frontend. No good. > > FWIW, I agree on the principle. In practice, I see this virtual > interface as a temporary measure to clean up the code progressively. > During my cleanup activities I deleted a lot of virtual interfaces > because they were not needed any more. At the end, the virtual interface > would just be a mean to have consistent behaviour across frontends and > to share code. It's also a nice way to separate real GUI programming (as > in model and view) and controllers. > > Abdel. > > -- Peter Kümmel
