Re: I'm still here...

> > "Samuele Pedroni" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > >This makes sense, although things get complicated if we want (as Magnus
> > >suggested in order to simplify wrappers) to have setters that are called
or
> not
> > >depending on whether wrappers.widget is set.
> >
> > Couldn't this be handled in the wrapper itself? For example:
> >
> > widget.text = "blah" -->> setText(self, val): if self.widget: ...
>
> that's how it is handled now,
>
> >
> > Or are we absolutely trying to avoid this?
>
> you should ask Magnus.

I forgot to mention that also the getFoo methods of the wrapper are written
expecting to be called only if widget is set, this is achieved by the current
code by calling pull on the wrapper only if an actual widget has been created.

So the model really needs to check for widget being None or not, or otherwise
the wrapper getter would have to check for widget and if it is not set return
some distinguishable value, a lot of duplication.

And as I said before not for all properties a corresponding model would need a
getter and we need a way to separate the two cases.

regards.




-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf