Re: [Freevo-devel] Re: [Freevo-cvslog] freevo skin.py,1.4,1.5

[Krister L. <kr...@km...>]

Thomas Malt wrote:
> Krister Lagerstrom <kr...@km...> writes:
> 
> | > All modules importing skin needs to
> | > add a 'skin.get_singleton()' line where they initialize the other
> | > objects.
> | 
> | I still like the "import skin ; skin.DrawMP3()" version better. I also
> | think "osd" is a better name than "skin", I see the OSD as the whole
> | functionality, not just the graphics routines.
> 
> But how do you then see the different skins integrate into the OSD
> class? Where should the default implementation be? How do you plan to
> design the architecture?

As I explained a minute ago in my other email there are two sides to 
this. From the UI/skin implementation side we want it to be all OO of 
course. But from the core Freevo side that is just a hassle, especially 
  if we want to move away from the current method of doing a "osd = 
osd.get_singleton()" at the top of each module. That causes problems 
with circular references etc. So there it'd be nice to have just the 
regular python module import instead. But I guess the main point is to 
avoid code being executed at the module level which will lead to 
circular references etc.

> A simple 'exec('from ' + modname  + ' import *')' will import the users
> skin into the skin.py namespace, but the user would still have to
> instance the object.
> 
> Calling skin = skin.Skin() or skin = skin.get_singleton() seem pretty
> similar to me.

But it is not good to do that at the module level since it will execute 
the skin code, which could do its own get_singleton() in turn...

> Should osd.drawMP3() just forward the call to skinimpl.drawMP3()? 
> Should osd import all functions from skinimpl into its namespace
> overriding what is already there?

I think it can be easily done this way by playing around with the ui 
module dictionary.
	
		/ Krister