How to write new widgets implementing MVC with lablgtk2? - gtk

I am writing a family of new widgets for lablgtk2, the OCaml bindings for Gtk+. Some of these widgets can edit or present a fairly complex information, I am therefore interested in using model-view-controler or subject-observer, similar to what can be found in the GTree module.
This module defines a GTree.model and a GTree.view class, each having signals which can be connected to, and a GTree.model can be attached to one or more GTree.view's.
Imitating this organisation in pure OCaml is not that trivial, because the code available in the library is a binding of the C-library. I need to go through the following steps:
Defining new widgets
Defining new signals
Triggering these new signals
Defining new models
I could go through 1 and 2 but I am not sure how to do 3 and 4. How to do these right?
Defining new widgets
The definition of new widgets itself is not problematic. The new widget is typically a specialised version of the Gnome canvas or a composite. In the former case, our new widget can inherit from the Gnome canvas as a GObj.widget and in the latter case, we can use the GObj.widget provided by the container used to hold the composite. This typically looks like
class view () =
let vbox = GPack.vbox () in
…
object(self)
inherit GObj.widget vbox#as_widget
…
end
Defining new signals
The bindings give plenty of examples for code defining new signals, so that we can define new signals for our widgets, as illustrated by the following snippet, considering the simple case of signals without parameters:
open GtkSignal
module Event =
struct
let plop : ([>`widget], unit -> unit) t = {
name = "plop_event";
classe = `widget;
marshaller = marshal_unit;
}
let fizz : ([>`widget], unit -> unit) t = {
name = "fizz_event";
classe = `widget;
marshaller = marshal_unit;
}
end
class pill_signals obj =
object (self)
inherit ['a] GObj.gobject_signals (obj :> Gtk.widget Gobject.obj)
method plop = self#connect Event.plop
method fizz = self#connect Event.fizz
end
With these definitions, our view widget can expose these signals by defining an appropriate connect method:
method connect =
new pill_signals obj
Triggering the new signals
It seems that the function GtkSignal.emit serves the purpose of emitting a signal to an object, triggering the registered callbacks. This functions as the following signature:
val emit :
'a Gobject.obj ->
sgn:('a, 'b) GtkSignal.t ->
emitter:(cont:('c Gobject.data_set array -> 'd) -> 'b) ->
conv:(Gobject.g_value -> 'd) -> 'b
The first two parameters are self-explaining, but it is not that clear, what the two remaining ones are. Unfortunately, there is no use example in lablgtk source code, as signals are emitted from the C-side of the code. These two arguments seems to be related with the preparation of the arguments of the signal, materialised as a 'c Gobject.data_set array and the retrieval of the yielded value with the argument labeled ~conv. Nevertheless, the role of the ~cont-argument in the emitter still has to be cleared.
Defining the new model
The tricky part in the definition of the model, is that it should inherit from GObj.object in order to be able to send an receive signals. Unfortunately, there is no function allowing to directly define a minimal Gtk+ object. The farthest I went in this direction was
module Model =
struct
let create () =
GtkObject.make ~classe:"GObject" []
end
let model () =
new model (Model.create ())
Calling the function model to instantiate the corresponding object yields the message:
Gtk-CRITICAL **: IA__gtk_object_sink: assertion 'GTK_IS_OBJECT (object)' failed
Clearly, there is something fishy here, most probably the parameter list (the empty list in the snippet above) was too small.

LablGTK provides a nice interface to Gtk signaling mechanisms, which allows us to use it without tinkering with GtkSignal and marshalling functions. This interface is provided by GUtil and is neatly documented.
How to use GUtil, as described in the module documentation
To add ML signals to a LablGTK object:
{[
class mywidget_signals obj ~mysignal1 ~mysignal2 = object
inherit somewidget_signals obj
inherit add_ml_signals obj [mysignal1#disconnect; mysignal2#disconnect]
method mysignal1 = mysignal1#connect ~after
method mysignal2 = mysignal2#connect ~after
end
class mywidget obj = object (self)
inherit somewidget obj
val mysignal1 = new signal obj
val mysignal2 = new signal obj
method connect = new mywidget_signals obj ~mysignal1 ~mysignal2
method call1 = mysignal1#call
method call2 = mysignal2#call
end
]}
You can also add ML signals to an arbitrary object; just inherit from ml_signals in place of widget_signals and add_ml_signals.
{[
class mysignals ~mysignal1 ~mysignal2 = object
inherit ml_signals [mysignal1#disconnect; mysignal2#disconnect]
method mysignal1 = mysignal1#connect ~after
method mysignal2 = mysignal2#connect ~after
end
]}
It is now easy to address the points 1, 2, 3, and 4 above:
This is fine
Use GUtil to define new signals instead of GtkSignal
Triggering the new signals is accomplished by the call method of ['a] GUtil.signal.
Since we do not use GtkSignal anymore, there is actually no problem.

Related

Python C API - How to inherit from your own python class?

The newtypes tutorial shows you how to inherit from a base python class. Can you inherit from your own python class? Something like this?
PyObject *mod = PyImport_AddModule("foomod");
PyObject *o = PyObject_GetAttrString(mod, "BaseClass");
PyTypeObject *t = o->ob_type;
FooType.tp_base = t;
if (PyType_Ready(&FooType ) < 0) return NULL;
though you need to define your struct with the base class as the first member per the documentation so it sounds like this is not possible? ie how would I setup the Foo struct?
typedef struct {
PyListObject list;
int state;
} SubListObject;
What I'm really trying to do is subclass _UnixSelectorEventLoop and it seems like my only solution is to define a python class that derives from my C class and from _UnixSelectorEventLoop with my C class listed first so that it can override methods in the other base class.
I think you're basically right on your assessment:
it seems like my only solution is to define a python class that derives from my C class and from _UnixSelectorEventLoop with my C class listed first so that it can override methods in the other base class.
You can't define a class that inherits from a Python class because it'd need to start with a C struct of basically arbitrary size.
There's a couple of other options that you might like to consider:
You could create a class the manual way by calling PyType_Type. See this useful answer on a question about multiple inheritance which is another sort of inheritance that the C API struggles with. This probably limits you too much, since you can't have C attributes, but you can have C functions.
You could do "inheritance by composition" - i.e. have you _UnixSelectorEventLoop as part of the object, then forward __getattr__ and __setattr__ to it in the event of unknown attributes. It's probably easier to see what I mean with Python code (which is simply but tediously transformed into C API code)
class YourClass:
def __init__(self,...):
self.state = 0
self._usel = _UnixSelectorEventLoop()
def __getattr__(self, name):
return getattr(self._usel, 'name')
def __setattr__(self, name, value):
if name in self.__dict__:
object.__setattr__(self, name, value)
else:
setattr(self._usel, name, value)
# maybe __hasattr__ and __delattr__ too?
I'm hoping to avoid having to write this C API code myself, but the slots are tp_getattro and tp_setattro. Note that __getattr__ will need to be more comprehensive in the C version, since it acts closer to the __getattribute__ in Python. The flipside is that isinstance and issubclass will fail, which may or may not be an issue for you.

Inheriting from Sealed classes in MATLAB

In MATLAB, one of the attributes of a class (defined after classdef) is Sealed, which means that no class can use it as a superclass (or to be more precise, "to indicate that these classes have not been designed to support subclasses."1).
For example, if I try to instantiate a class that's defined as below (considering table is Sealed):
classdef SomeLie < table
end
I would get the 'MATLAB:class:sealed' error:
>> A = SomeLie;
Error using SomeLie
Class 'table' is Sealed and may not be used as a superclass.
As I refuse to be told by a machine what I may or may not do, I would like to subclass a Sealed class, regardless. How can I do that in MATLAB R2017a?
I'm having a hard time believing that this system is completely airtight, so I'm looking for a solution that would cause the Sealed attribute to be silently ignored (or something of that sort). The desired solution should work without modifying any "library class definitions" to remove Sealed from them.
I tried playing around with "reflection", but arrived at a dead end...
classdef SomeLie % < table
properties (Access = private)
innerTable table;
end
properties (GetAccess = public)
methodHandles struct = struct();
end
methods
function slObj = SomeLie(varargin)
slObj.innerTable = table(varargin{:});
% methodHandles = methods(slObj.innerTable);
ml = ?table; ml = {ml.MethodList.Name}.';
ml = setdiff(ml,'end');
tmpStruct = struct;
for indM = 1:numel(ml)
tmpStruct.(ml{indM}) = str2func([...
'#(varargin)' ml{indM} '(slObj.innerTable,varargin{:})']);
end
slObj.methodHandles = tmpStruct;
end
function varargout = subsref(slObj,varargin)
S = struct(slObj);
varargout{:} = S.methodHandles.(varargin{1}.subs)(varargin{:});
end
end
end
(There's no need to fix the above code, I was just sharing)
I do not think the machine is the problem, but the class designer and he certainly has good motivations to seal the class. "Philosophy" of coding, a part, you could 'own' the class in a wrapper class without defining it sealed.
For example, supposer the class Hello is sealed and has a method (or function, if you wish) sayHello which you would like to use in inherited classes you could define a class FreeHello (public) which contains an instance of Hello. At the constructor you build the corresponding Hello and then you define a sayHello method whose body simply calls your Hello instance and makes it execute the sayHello method (and returns the output, accordingly).
In order to 'open' the sealed class, you need to do these for all properties and public methods; of course you are still not capable of accessing private methods, but now you can subclass your wrapper class, as you wish.

Classname in static methods of abstract classes

I would like to access the class name of the concrete class that's invoking a static method implemented in an abstract superclass.
This is the code (part of) of the abstract superclasss:
classdef (Abstract) AbstractJobProcessor < handle
properties (Abstract, Constant)
VERSION_MAJOR;
VERSION_MINOR;
LAST_MODIFIED;
end
...
methods (Static)
function res = getVersionMajor;
res = AbstractJobProcessor.VERSION_MAJOR;
end
function res = getVersionMinor
res = AbstractJobProcessor.VERSION_MINOR;
end
function res = getVersionInfo
res = sprintf('**CLASSNAME**: v%d.%02d (last modified: %s)',...
AbstractJobProcessor.VERSION_MAJOR,...
AbstractJobProcessor.VERSION_MINOR,...
AbstractJobProcessor.LAST_MODIFIED);
end
end
...
Basically, I would like to access the classname of the concrete subclass and use it in the method getVersionInfo in place of the string **CLASSNAME**.
All the methods returning meta information about a class (that I have found in the documentation) require a reference to an instance of the class (like, for example, mc = metaclass(object)).
The below function will give you what you want - subclass name, that was used when invoking an (inherited) static superclass method. Just call it inside your superclass method like you would any normal function:
className = getStaticCallingClassName();
What it does handle:
Both the case when method was invoked programmatically (i.e. by a running script / function), as well as when it was invoked from the command window.
Arbitrarily nested package names (i.e. classes located inside directories prefixed with +).
What it does not handle:
Does not work if the static method is called in a non-static context, i.e. on an object instance. But you should not be using such syntax anyway. This would've been possible if we were able to use evalin with 'caller' workspace recursively, but it does not work this way.
A brief explanation behind the idea: second entry in the stack trace, produced by dbstack, would correspond to the superclass, which we can use to extract the static method name. The next steps depend on:
If the method is invoked programmatically, third stack entry would point us to a line in the the parent script/function which we need to read, e.g. using dbtype. All that's left to do is extract the subclass name using regexp based on the method name.
If the method is invoked from command window, we query the last command and use that as the input for our regular expression.
Note that even if stack has 3 entries or more, it doesn't mean that the method was invoked programmatically. For example, if we've stopped on a breakpoint somewhere and invoke the method from command window, stack trace would be long, but regexp based on the line from the third stack trace entry will not give us the answer. In this case we fall back to the command window approach.
Warning: it heavily relies on undocumented features and may break in any feature release. Tested on Matlab 2015b, but should work on most previous releases as well. Some may say it is quite dirty, but it works very well, and it's the only method that I'm aware of to achieve such a behavior.
function [className, fullPath] = getStaticCallingClassName()
ST = dbstack('-completenames');
% First one is getStaticCallingClassName, second one is the superclass
methodName = char(regexp(ST(2).name, '[^\.]([^.]*)$', 'match'));
% matches string (combination of alphanumeric/underscore/dot characters) preceeding the given method call.
pattern = sprintf('[\\w.-]*(?=.%s)', methodName);
% If the parent called static method programmatically, we should be able to find it via the next (third) stack trace
if length(ST) > 2
command = evalc('dbtype(ST(3).file, num2str(ST(3).line))');
className = char(regexp(command, pattern, 'match'));
else % was likely called from command window. Long stack trace means that we're simply waiting in a breakpoint somewhere
className = []; % go straight to command window approach
end
if isempty(className) % means that static method was called directly from command window
javaHistory = com.mathworks.mlservices.MLCommandHistoryServices.getSessionHistory();
command = char(javaHistory(end));
className = char(regexp(command, pattern, 'match'));
end
fullPath = which(className);
end
Here's a workaround. According to the MATLAB documentation:
'Ordinary methods define functions that operate on objects of the class',
'Static methods are (1) associated with a class, but (2) not with specific instances of that class'.
You can have both aspects of static methods if you call an ordinary method with an empty object array.
For example, suppose we have a base class:
classdef base
methods
function obj = base()
disp('constructor called')
end
function dispClassName(obj)
disp(['class name = ', class(obj)]);
end
end
end
and a subclass
classdef sub < base
end
Now call the methods as follows (this will not invoke any constructor):
>> base.empty.dispClassName
class name = base
>> sub.empty.dispClassName
class name = sub
A real solution (for which I did an enhancement request 03315500 to MathWorks) would be to extend the MATLAB language with a method attribute 'Class' to define methods that are associated with the invoking class (similar to the Python #classmethod decorator). Methods of this class would automatically receive the metaclass of the invoking function as a first argument. With such an extension we could define a base class:
% Future MATLAB syntax extension
classdef base
methods(Class) % New method attribute ‘Class’
function dispClassName(cls) % implicit argument (meta.class)
disp(['class name = ' cls.Name ]);
end
end
end
and a subclass
classdef sub < base
end
and call
>> base.dispClassName
class name = base
>> sub.dispClassName
class name = sub

Creating custom DOM events with scalajs

I can't find a way to create custom events with scala-js. For instance, with js you can create a custom event like the following (taken from here):
var event = new CustomEvent('build', { 'detail': elem.dataset.time });
However, there is no constructor for CustomerEvent or Event in scala-js that accept arguments. Also, subclassing either such as:
class DrawEvent extends Event {
override def `type` = "draw"
}
leads to
Uncaught TypeError: undefined is not a function
when trying to construct via new DrawEvent()
Any ideas?
To instantiate javascript classes in ScalaJs you have to use js.Dynamic.newInstance:
This should work for your use case:
val event = js.Dynamic.newInstance(js.Dynamic.global.CustomEvent)("build", js.Dynamic.literal(detail = elem.dataset.time)).asInstanceOf[js.dom.CustomEvent]
There is more info available at the remarks portion (all the way at the bottom) of:
http://www.scala-js.org/doc/calling-javascript.html
Here is the same solution using some imports to make it shorter
import js.Dynamic.{ global => g, newInstance => jsnew, literal => lit }
val event = jsnew(g.CustomEvent)("build", lit(detail = elem.dataset.time)).asInstanceOf[js.dom.CustomEvent]
If you want to stay in the typed DOM (assuming you are talking about the scala-js-dom library), you can do:
new CustomEvent().initCustomEvent('build', false, false, elem.dataset.time)
The constructor you are using is actually only specified in DOM 4 (see MDN).

Need help understanding Generics, How To Abstract Types Question

I could use some really good links that explain Generics and how to use them. But I also have a very specific question, relater to working on a current project.
Given this class constructor:
public class SecuredDomainViewModel<TDomainContext, TEntity> : DomainViewModel<TDomainContext, TEntity>
where TDomainContext : DomainContext, new()
where TEntity : Entity, new()
public SecuredDomainViewModel(TDomainContext domainContext, ProtectedItem protectedItem)
: base(domainContext)
{
this.protectedItem = protectedItem;
}
And its creation this way:
DomainViewModel d;
d = new SecuredDomainViewModel<MyContext, MyEntityType>(this.context, selectedProtectedItem);
Assuming I have 20 different EntityTypes within MyContext, is there any easier way to call the constructor without a large switch statement?
Also, since d is DomainViewModel and I later need to access methods from SecuredDomainViewModel, it seems I need to do this:
if (((SecuredDomainViewModel<MyContext, MyEntityType>)d).CanEditEntity)
But again "MyEntityType" could actually be one of 20 diffent types. Is there anyway to write these types of statements where MyEntityType is returned from some sort of Reflection?
Additional Info for Clarification:
I will investigate ConstructorInfo, but I think I may have incorrectly described what I'm looking to do.
Assume I have the DomainViewModel, d in my original posting.
This may have been constructed via three possible ways:
d = new SecuredDomainViewModel<MyContext, Order>(this.context, selectedProtectedItem);
d = new SecuredDomainViewModel<MyContext, Invoice>(this.context, selectedProtectedItem);
d = new SecuredDomainViewModel<MyContext, Consumer>(this.context, selectedProtectedItem);
Later, I need to access methods on the SecuredDomainViewModel, which currently must be called this way:
ex: if (((SecuredDomainViewModel<MyContext, Order)d).CanEditEntity)
ex: if (((SecuredDomainViewModel<MyContext, Invoice)d).CanEditEntity)
ex: if (((SecuredDomainViewModel<MyContext, Consumer)d).CanEditEntity)
Assuming I have N+ entity types in this context, what I was hoping to be able to do is
something like this with one call:
ex: if (((SecuredDomainViewModel<MyContext, CurrentEntityType)d).CanEditEntity)
Where CurrentEntityType was some sort of function or other type of call that returned Order, Invoice or Consumer based on the current item entity type.
Is that possible?
You can create a non-generic interface that has the CanEditEntity property on it, make SecuredDomainViewModel inherit off that, then call the property through the interface...
Also, the new() constructor allows you to call a constructor on a generic type that has no arguments (so you can just write new TEntity()), but if you want to call a constructor that has parameters one handy trick I use is to pass it in as a delegate:
public void Method<T>(Func<string, bool, T> ctor) {
// ...
T newobj = ctor("foo", true);
// ...
}
//called later...
Method((s, b) => new MyClass(s, b));
I can't help on the links, and likely not on the type either.
Constructor
If you have the Type, you can get the constructor:
ConstructorInfo construtor = typeof(MyEntityType).GetConstructor(new object[]{TDomainContext, ProtectedItem});
Type
I'm not really sure what you're looking for, but I can only see something like
if (((SecuredDomainViewModel<MyContext, entityType>)d).CanEditEntity)
{
entityType=typeof(Orders)
}
being what you want.