On Mon, 2009-08-10 at 21:19 +0100, Michael Drake wrote: > In article <[email protected]>, > Matthew Hambley <[email protected]> wrote: > > In message <1249852601.14617.93.ca...@duiker> > > John-Mark Bell <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Cookies frontend code (hideously entwined with treeview, mostly > > > migrated to the core in one of the development branches that's blocked > > > on merge until the RO frontend is ported to the new core API). > > > The entanglement is not being over stated here. I wanted to do some > > work on the cookies interface (still do, in fact) but got bogged down > > in trying to factor out the tree and button bar stuff. Then work blew > > up and I had to put it on hold. > > The interface for using trees and the cookies code has been tidied up. The > cookies code is now in the core code (in a development branch). The RISC > OS front end only really needs a window with a toolbar and to tell the > core what where the user is clicking, etc.
I think you need some quotes around "only" :P > > > UI themeing. Much voodoo I've never comprehended. Also includes > > > toolbars, which should be made into a standalone component, imo. > > > It is a bit of a mess. I think the problem comes from an assumption > > that button bars are the only thing which will ever be themed. > > Therefore the two concepts form one big gooey splat of code. > > Toolbars are the only thing that can be themed, because we weren't that > fond of the idea of theming, since it over complicates things. :) Themes > are really just a set of images for toolbar icons. I guess most of the > "theme" stuff would be more aptly named "toolbar". There's two, completely orthogonal things going on in that code: 1) A toolbar widget (and its corresponding editor) 2) Management of theme data. In the interests of my sanity, these should be separated. J.
