Andre Poenitz wrote: > How would you have rated the previous GUII architecture?
I would not have implemented it that way, but I never had big problems with it. Is was in my experience far less a problem than you always made it appear. Surely implementing a new inset required too many classes, but creating these was some dull copy/paste/adjust work that you could do when you needed a break from serious work, since the architecture was well documented and you could always use existing stuff as a base. The unneeded work for a new inset that would have been saved by a bettter architecture was _at most_ 1-3 hours. And if the InsetCommand->InsetFoo change would have had more than cosmetical advantages at the time I tried it I simply would have implemented the needed controllers. Far more time is consumed by half finished half documented redesigns of half finished half documented redesigns. For example, metrics/draw: The first unfinished redesign I know of happened before 1.4.0, and created among others bug 1814. The next redesign happened before 1.5.0 and was not finished either. Where is the metrics/draw concept documented? Who understands the current state? I can tell you why bug 1814 is still not solved, although it is a major issue, makes e.g. branches with more than a few lines unusable and several people already invested a considerable amount of time trying to solve it: Because fixing this requires a full understanding of the current state of the metrics/draw machinery (not some idealized, but unimplemented theoretical idea), and gaining that is simply too difficult. Georg
