Sounds ok to me. I think we definitely want to decouple Harmony
and themes as far as possible; these are things people'll want to
distribute separately (ourselves included unless we want a huge tarball)
Olivier Galibert ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) spake thusly:
> On Tue, Sep 29, 1998 at 03:54:52PM +0200, Christian Boos wrote:
> >
> > No real need for templates as I thought. We can get rid of className()
> > simply by moving the {register,get}_drawing_object stuff from
> > qapplication.cc to qwidget.cc
>
> Very nice. Some details:
> - I'd put the static theme_map _themes; and themes() method definition
> in the Q_OBJECT macro as defensive programming against stupid
> mistakes which end up having the QPushButton drawing table fill the
> QButton one and everything _looking_ like it works... until it
> doesn't anymore
> - QWidget also needs a theme registration, so not _pure_ virtual for
> it.
> - Adding functions clutters the namespace. A QWidget or QApplication
> static method is better (and equivalent).
>
> Also, PushButton::register_theme("Motif",&QPushButton_i); seems better
> for two reasons:
> - no special knowledge of anything internal (which means, we can
> change things even after release)
> - we can typecheck the specialized drawing classes like
> harmony_style_QScrollBar (the drawing object must inherit of them)
> - it looks nicer :-)
>
> Others, what do you think of it?
>
> OG.
>
>
--
Jo
Harmony - the project to create an LGPL Qt clone
http://harmony.ruhr.de
