| Orphan [message #98596] |
Sat, 11 October 2003 00:30  |
Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: ThisisFake.Fakeness.xyz
i am trying to understand what orphan is for in GEF. My impression of
orphan was that it was deleted, but not flushed. but that does not seem
to be the case in GEF. Delete and orphan do not seem to have a practical
difference.
last architecture I worked on just used orphan when someone hit delete.
then any action that flushed the undo stack would fire off a true 'delete'
which would cause the things to release any resources they had, since they
were now permanantly dead.
Then in GEF I see policies like ComponentEditPolicy that says it forwards
ORPHAN and DELETE commands to the parent. but it allows for the component
to add to the DELETE command if it so chooses.
But then go look at the containerEditPolicy and it claims to handle add,
create, and orphan. So who handles delete? The EditPart? I though the
EditPolicies handled all the commands?!
Seems a little inconsistent. I would expect DELETE and ORPHAN to be
practical mirrors of each other, but they seem to do the same thing, but
they are doing it in different places.
Discombobulatedly yours,
CL
|
|
|
|
| Re: Orphan [message #98835 is a reply to message #98612] |
Sun, 12 October 2003 10:22  |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: ThisisFake.Fakeness.xyz
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 00:43:50 -0400, CL [dnoyeB] Gilbert wrote:
> A little more.
>
> ComponentEditPolicy claims DELETE is forwarded to the parent just as it
> claims for ORPHAN. In the architecture you can see clearly that ORPHAN
> is forwarded to the parent in the form of REQ_ORPHAN_CHILDREN. But
> DELETE is not forwarded anywhere by the architecture. Why no
> REQ_DELETE_CHILDREN?
>
> Oh, and the comment for the class even claims that the parent is sent
> REQ_DELETE_DEPENDANTS, but I don't see that happening. And whats with
> the name dependants instead of children? is that different somehow?
>
>
> "?"
So far I found one good cleanup. I did away with ContainerEditPolicy. All
that is now handled by the LayoutEditPolicy (and it was not that much of a
change). To mee this seems consistent with what happened with the NODE
and GRAPHIC NODE stuff. The non graphic stuff gave way. Same thing here,
the COntainer policy is really a non-graphical policy, that has parts of
itself replicated in the Layout policy. So instead I just implemented the
whole thing in the layout policy. I like that better.
|
|
|
Powered by
FUDForum. Page generated in 1.03849 seconds
Home