Re: FINAL CALL

> So how would .lib be 'divided'?  Or not at all?  I don't enjoy sifting
> through 50 or so files.  I'd still rather it was broken down into the
> widgets / non-widgets.

Okay, I've had some more thoughts on this.

I'm (finally) agree (read: understand) the architecture proposal.  For some
reason it wasn't clear to me the way xwt.theme got substituted out and
xwt.widgets preapplies these.  I think it's because I was still expect there
to be something of use in xwt.theme.

A question here: why use xwt.theme over xwt.standard - if it's going to be a
standard theme... standard makes more sense here.

The breaking up of xwt.lib...  if you don't break it up it will be at least
(counts) 40, probably 50 or more files.  I thought the widgets/non-widgets
or, if you like, tangible/intangible distinction was a fairly clear one.
Maybe not.  I'm no longer particularly bothered about it... it became
arguing for arguings sake and it's very subjective (I like them separated,
David is neurtal, Adam doesn't like the separated) and subjective arguments
have hampered this theme debate purely because nobody is *wrong*.

I don't like xwt.lib.layout because keybindings are not a layout thing.

What I'd prefer is perhaps xwt.lib and xwt.lib.abstract, where xwt.lib
contains what you're thinking goes in xwt.lib.layout and xwt.lib.abstract
contains the 'functionality' pure lib only templates.
_______________________________________________
http://lists.xwt.org/listinfo/dev