[haiku-appserver] Re: purpose of libappserver.so
- From: "Axel Dörfler" <axeld@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: haiku-appserver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 18:46:13 +0100 CET
"DarkWyrm" <bpmagic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > How about drawing those previews inside the app_server into a
> > BBitmap
> > Appearance has passed to it? At least I don't see the necessity for
> > the way it's done now.
> That would require a significant amount of code to do so. The drawing
> functions in the DefaultDecorator, for example, take a little over
> 200
> lines of code. Big deal. The BeHat decorator (not currently in the
Why would you want to do that? Why not just have the app_server use
this display driver to draw into the bitmap buffer provided by
Appearance?
I don't see a problem with this, nor much work.
[...]
> This is almost all of the files in the library itself. Additionally,
> the private API for system cursors is kept in the library and will be
> also used by Appearance at some future time. You could say that
> Appearance is our equivalent of Be's ScrollBar preferences app - it
> has
> a tendency to break the general protocol followed by most preferences
> apps because it's using a private API and it tweaks things handled by
> the app_server itself.
Well, private APIs are one thing and fine, but I think this is another
case, as both, app_server and Appearance link against this library.
What would the app_server do with this private API?
> The decorators themselves also link against libappserver. There was a
> time when Appearance and the window decorators had their own copies
> of
> the sources that they needed, but it was hard to keep them in sync
> because of the multiple copies in the tree. It also speeds up build
> time because there are half as many files to link whenever you're
> working on something like the ServerWindow class because none of the
> foundation classes have been changed, and while you could just have
> the
> decorators and Appearance link against the app_server itself, I think
> that's more hackish than what's in place. I hope this clears things
> up
> for you. :)
Why not just link the decorators against the app_server, then? That's
the usual way to deal with add-ons.
Bye,
Axel.
Other related posts:
