Re: widgets plan proposal

> > The second question ties in with the previous point -- at least in what
> > Rod and Charlie have done now, what is proposed to be impl doesn't
> > actually have a theme -- it's the bare minimum to achieve the desired
> > behaviours that 99% of the themes will use anyway.  The button for
> > example, has the boxes and the code to handle hovers, presses and
> > whatnot, but does not have the boxes which have the dotted border of
> > monopoly focused widgets, or the bevel that goes away when pressed.
>
> That sounds like almost exactly what I'm calling for.  Excellent.

Well that is a problem if it's supposed to _work_ without an xwt.theme() call 
-- try removing the xwt.theme() statement and see what happens... not only is 
it not pretty, I would go so far as to say it's unworkable.  AFAIR there are 
no errors, though...  

> > I would rather have the same strict policy you have set out for the
> > engine. Once the widget tree is declared happy, any changes to that
> > widget tree should be cleared by consensus before commit.

> Interesting.  How about if I fork of stable branches periodically, and
> you can only commit to those branches with consensus approval?

Hmm...  Let me think on this for a bit.  That's an interesting reply.  :-)  Do 
you have a HEAD where you don't know if it'll work or not (but if you want it 
to work you use a branch tag for the latest stable), or do you have a HEAD 
where you have a pretty good guess that it will work, and if you want it to 
work for sure, you use the stable tag...

> > I'll take a look at it.  What software are you using to generate thse
> > reports?

> Custom perl scripts.

Hmm... Anything top secret?  Can I get a copy?

Regards,
Andrew

_______________________________________________
http://lists.xwt.org/listinfo/dev