P Zoltan wrote: > Hello people, > > I've seen a new class, called SimpleComponent in the source code. What is > its purpuse? Creating predefined component structures shouldn't imply yet > another layer of abstraction. I think it would be better to add the > convenience functions directly to the Component, maybe by different > constructors.
I extracted everything in SimpleComponent *from* component. If you look at the class inheritance heirarchy, you'll see why. It adds several arrays that are only partially used by some components. The same goes for DipComponent and DSubCon, both were extracted and separated from Component. =) I feel that this new layer of complexity is helpful because Component formerly had many dozens of direct descendants, obviously many of these were using only a subset of the functionality in Component. By breaking it up, it becomes clearer which classes will be affected by which changes. > In the long term in my opinion it would be useful to separate the gui > from the non-gui, such that there would exist a well-defined interface > between these two. This way, the gui could be easily thanged from QT3 to > QT4, with keeping most part of the simulator. Yes, that would be even better. -- New president: Here we go again... Chemistry.com: A total rip-off. Powers are not rights. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Register Now for Creativity and Technology (CaT), June 3rd, NYC. CaT is a gathering of tech-side developers & brand creativity professionals. Meet the minds behind Google Creative Lab, Visual Complexity, Processing, & iPhoneDevCamp as they present alongside digital heavyweights like Barbarian Group, R/GA, & Big Spaceship. http://p.sf.net/sfu/creativitycat-com _______________________________________________ Ktechlab-devel mailing list Ktechlab-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ktechlab-devel
