Re: Clarification of layout proposal

On Thursday, April 3, 2003, at 01:36  AM, Charles Goodwin wrote:
> xwt.standard
> // standard theme, there to be overlay()ed
> // and stuff here preapplies xwt.widget stuff
>
> xwt.widget
> // contains behaviour preapplies from xwt.theme.common
> // and a preapply from xwt.theme
>
> xwt.theme[.common]
> // stuff common to most themes (common _keypress etc)
> // including layout traps (_layoutbox = f() { ... })
>
> xwt.lib[.common]
> // library stuff, many widgets won't have a namesake
> // here because their behaviour is 'common'

Under this model, there is no point in having xwt.widget. As far as I 
can tell, it defeats the entire purpose of everything I've been trying 
to say.

The original goal of the proposal was that users use xwt.widget, which 
is a frontend for the stuff in xwt.theme. But xwt.theme is overlayed by 
the specific theme. That way, a power developer can get a themed copy 
of the backend interface by pointing to xwt.theme.

Lets say for a moment we separate the default theme from xwt.theme, 
which I am completely fine with. We can put it in xwt.standard, or 
org.xwt.themes.simple. Then we'd do this:

xwt.widget - preapplies - xwt.theme
xwt.standard - overlays - xwt.theme
xwt.standard - preapplies - xwt.lib

What advantage is there in killing the value of xwt.theme?

d


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