On Sat, 2005-05-28 at 01:45 -0700, Chas wrote: > > Those 3 seem like truely important solvable issues, > > data binding doesn't > > seem hard at all, especially if you can implement > > GInterfaces in C#. > > I have no argue with that. Still, I find data-binding > is an important feature because it can save a lot of > code & time in many cases and many people are > expecting it from a .Net GUI toolkit. > And so, I think some solution should be integrated to > Gtk# if possible. That is why I am asking for your > opinion and not just implementing a TreeModel that > fits my project alone. Granted, it'd not be 100% > managed but still the benefit would outweigh the cost > IMHO. > > Do you think such a feature cannot be integrated to > Gtk# before the 3 issues you've mentioned are solved, > or do you just not see it as a priority?
The ability to implement GInterfaces and override virtual methods would absolutely help with implementing a pure C# TreeModel implementation to allow for nice and easy data-binding. However, it would still be possible w/o it. You can actually look at the gtk# source for a TreeModel implementation (NodeStore). One issue if you look at NodeStore, is that the managed bit doesn't implement TreeModel, and this ends up creating a lot of interesting issues, like the requirement of NodeSelection, NodeCellDataFunc, and (somewhat) NodeView... I think all of it is a priority, but I absolutely think that working to allow *all* GInterface implementations gives you a lot more than writing one-off hacks to implement a single GInterface once... --Todd _______________________________________________ Gtk-sharp-list maillist - [email protected] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/gtk-sharp-list
