Re: [gtkmvc-users] From names to widgets

[Tobias W. <to...@ce...>]

On 10.10.2010, at 00:02, Roberto Cavada wrote:

> I am resuming this one:

Should we use?
https://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/pygtkmvc/ticket/3

> What is AbstractView view for (common base class?)

Yes

> We may even change View to GladeView, and keep View deriving from AbstractView and being the base class for both GladeView and BuilderView.

Why only change the name?
What code would go into View that couldn't go into AbstractView?

> Of course GladeView would break compatibility, but we are addressing 2.0 here.

So you would introduce GtkBuilder support in 1.99.1 and already change it in 2.0? I think we need some stability to attract users.

>> If desired there could be automating switching based on the presence of the glade/builder attribute using __new__.

> You mean building a either a GladeView or BuilderView depending on the presence of one of the two attributes?

Yes. But now that I think of it users whould have to eschew direct parent calls for super(), which is a problem.