Andre Poenitz wrote:
On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 11:04:39AM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes a écrit :
Georg Baum wrote:
If you had a serialization that
would not require to implement these wrapper classes for new insets and
that would 'just work' without additional effort (for example by
using the
insets read() and write() methods directly), then I think this would be
ideal.
+1
That would be a good first step indeed. But I personally don't think
the hypothetical benefit of using "inset globs" in the lyxserver is
worth it. I mean, I agree this would be nice to have, this kind of
thing is even necessary for simulation programs where you definitely
want to separate the algorithm from the GUI but, in our case, I really
think this serialization is a typical case of over-engineering and we
should get rid of it. That's just my opinion of course :-)
Serialization allows us to have the paragraph-params-apply lfun, for
example, which allow to bind any aspect
of paragraph settings to a key or icon.
No, what you are talking about is the frontend -> core communication,
which I agree should be kept working via LFUN. But we don't need any
serialization to do that, just a well defined protocol.
Right now, we have a copy of the current ParagraphParam in the
controller and this is very wrong.
A sign that there's something wrong is that e.g ControlWrap accessing
InsetWrapMailer, which stores a InsetWrap reference. So ControlWrap
basically has indirect access to InsetWrap already. Just letting
it access it directly without intermediate serialization just looks like
a sensible thing to do.
Exactly.
Abdel.
