On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 06:27:00PM +0100, Angus Leeming wrote:
> BoundingBox etc out of the simple ones and that I can set() and get() them
> very elegantly. They should be able to do exactly the same; leads to very
> clean code.
But it also has disadvantages. Custom widgets are often less flexible,
and cannot be manipulated via Qt Designer. Additionally there are
relatively few cases where it's worth the hassle, since it will only be
used once.
To me, this is a total case of "worse is better". it helps xforms
enormously no doubt, but Qt is already simple enough that in most cases,
simple code that is to some degree "worse" is actually far easier to
maintain and even to read.
> Moreover, it means that we could now pass "suspect" complex widgets to the
> button controller. Ie those that could possibly have an invalid state. Eg
> the GlueLength widget. The button controller could interrogate them to decide
> whether to enable the Apply/Ok buttons.
This is heading dangerously close to re-implementing a widget toolkit
and I'm not sure I like the idea.
Qt is doing fine with the current controller architecture, please don't
impose weird requirements on it. I don't care about xforms, you are free
to polish that turd till you see your face in it :)
regards
john
--
"I personally think Windows NT will be the mainstream operating system within a few
years."
"My belief: Linux will never go mainstream."
"I've always said that Linux could become a serious challenger to Microsoft's Windows
NT."
- Jesse Berst
