Enlightenment Foundation Libraries Project
well about those thing,
we need more detail explain about @felipealmeida , so I'll request his comment when he come to the office :)
but felipe was on the side of not using dynamic class...
okay I stop to update the patch for now...
and let's get clear conclusion regarding this matter.
hmm... yeah I agreed with that. so I'll update the patch with making it inherit from layout.
Actually I thought that we might need to remove layout factory cause I cannot find any case of using it till now, but still you think it is necessary, I can go with your idea.
but we have to think about maintaining one more class which may not often used.... if you can find any use case, it should be left.
we do this because,
is unable with current list item factory design.
can you check the efl_ui_property.eo?
about the factory,
we all know the purpose of factory bind, so it need to be called always these two API as the pair.
so why not making it one API?
porperty bind will be internally handled.
proposal interface eo.
the code is not working yet.
If property_bind_part is too ambigiuous, we can go with property_bind_text.
efl_ui_bind_property(imgf, "", "path"); //connect to "path" property efl_ui_bind_factory(factory, "efl.icon", imgf);
@cedric I know its same but we can have this specific function for explicit declaring on Efl.Part controls. so this will let user/widget both understand what action will happen by API calls.
if you not a fan of this idea, okay, I can drop it.
rebase the patch with resolving merge conflict.
this patch need to be fixed yet.
and also need to fix few thing in the view... it still using layout terms and class so it need to be changed Efl.Ui.Item as I see.. will be updated soon.
@cedric that's true but I wonder we still need to maintain layout_factory or not. do we need it?
and also some style set and size calculation will be different, so I don't know we can solve this with calling efl_super...
layout factory may need to be fixed too then.
this never should have even passed review. it's obviously wrong - the code path is used. a simple look at the for loop being removed would have shown that