Re: [Gzz] cellview_naming

[Benja Fallenstein]

Tuomas Lukka wrote:

> benja wrote:
>  
>
> > - ``CellView`` to ``CellBoxView``
> >
> > ``CellContentView`` keeps its name. This makes sense because after all,
> > both ``CellBoxView`` and ``CellContentView`` are just ways to view
> > a cell, one with and one without a box around.
> >    
>
> I disagree; having separate interfaces makes using CellInBoxHook a bother:
> you can't then use it for either of the derived interfaces, since they
> are abstract classes..

Hm. There is no CellInBoxHook class as far as I can see, but I presume 
you mean CellPlacementHook/CellInBoxPlugin. What are the intended use 
cases for them? (It would be nice if this could be in the javadoc...)

I don't know, I like to have two different classes simply because 
through static typing, it avoids putting a box inside a box inside a box 
inside a box for a single cell... On the other hand, I wouldn't mind a 
cellview that would be just the content, without any box around. Hmmm.

-- If the user of the interface declares it so, I guess it should be 
possible to have box-in-box-in-box too, but the problem is that 
currently the CellView gets the CellContentView from the ViewContext:

CellView getCellView(); // used in the View
CellContentView getCellContentView(); // used in the cell view

If a CellView were returned by getCellContentView(), that CellView would 
potentially call getCellContentView().place() and go into an infinite loop.

It would be possible to have only the CellView interface and make the 
box views work like this:

BoxCellView(CellView sub) { this.sub = sub; }
void place(...) {
-- Place the box, set the clipping.
sub.place(...); // inside the box
-- Remove the clipping.
}

The problem I see with this is that the box view and the content view 
are not independently selectable.

- Benja