I would like to do coloring in Eclipse without using the presentation reconciler. Therefore, first, I need to figure out how to associate a TextPresentation object with either my editor or document, but I am having difficulty finding out how to link it either of those. Normally, the CreatePresentation in the IPResentationReconciler interface would give the style range to the textpresentation, and from there Eclipse would know what to do with that presentation object. Is there some way to use a TextPresentation object without the use of PresentationReconciler? It would be nice if I could do coloring without the use of reconciler. Thank you.
I finally figured out how to achieve the coloring without the use of Reconcilers.
I discovered that first I needed a way to obtain a reference to my SourceViewer object, as I am extending TextEditor. I also discovered that I could implement the TextListener interface and add my own listener to the SourceViewer object. One must be careful, however, as calling the getSourceViewer() method can result in null if not called at the appropriate spot. Originally, I overwrote the init(...) function in my editor class and made the getSourceViewer() call, but it still resulted in null. After doing a bit of research, I discovered that I could properly obtain a reference to the SourceViewer object by overriding the createPartControl method. I first call super.createPartControl(...) and then make a call to getSourceViewer(). After I obtained that reference, I used that with my listener class I created and was able to do the coloring myself with the setTextColor method the SourceViewer object has. Hope this helps others in the same situation.
Related
It seems when I call Gdk.Seat.grab() in GJS I get an error:
Gjs-WARNING **: JS ERROR: TypeError: Gdk.Seat.grab is not a function
This function and class is listed in the GJS Docs, but maybe I'm calling it wrong? If I call typeof on Gdk.Seat.grab it comes back undefined. Is this not possible, or is there another way I can grab focus in this way?
My use case is gathering a keybinding from a user, for which I can use Gtk.CellRendererAccel, but I would prefer not to use a Gtk.TreeView. The docs say about CellRenderers that:
These objects are used primarily by the GtkTreeView widget, though they aren’t tied to them in any specific way.
and...
The primary use of a GtkCellRenderer is for drawing a certain graphical elements on a cairo_t.
Which implies I could use it outside of TreeView, but with no hints as to how.
grab() is a method of Gdk.Seat, so you need a Gdk.Seat object to call it on. It looks like you're calling it as a static method, Gdk.Seat.grab(). So, you'll need something like Gdk.DeviceManager.get().get_default_display().get_default_seat() or you can get a Gdk.Seat object from a Gdk.Event.
It's not clear from the described use case what you are trying to do with the grab, but there may be an easier way to accomplish it.
I have a single table inheritance mechanism and a controller method that creates objects based on a text type.
From my controller:
tile = Object.const_get(tile_data[:type]).new(params_from_tile(tile_data))
tile.save
inside my model base class I have several before create hooks:
before_create :set_handle, :upload
It appears none of my hooks are firing, does it have something to do with my use of Object.const_get to create my objects?
Edit: I've managed to work around this by not using Object.const_get().new now I'm just invoking my Tile.new directly, and there does not appear to be any negative repercussions, so yeah.
Theoretically, there is no difference how you access the class, both of these would behave exactly same:
Tile.new(params_from_tile(tile_data))
and
Object.const_get("Tile").new(params_from_tile(tile_data))
Your seeing bad behaviour may have to do with some other small thing missing.
May be tile_data[:type] in your example pointing to something else, did you make sure Tile record gets saved without callback. Can you try with Object.const_get("Tile") and see what happens.
I've changed this to invoke the baseclass directly:
Tile.new(params_from_tile(tile_data))
And now my hooks are being called as expected, so I'm not sure why this behaves this way, and would appreciate a better answer from someone who knows, but it appears that the answer is that using Object.const_get().new to create an object skips all hooks. On a side note, Invoking create on the baseclass with just a type attribute will still cause subclass hooks to fire, So thats nice.
I've been playing around with a button in my storyboard, and had a hard time getting a border around it, until I found a page where it showed how to add a User Defined Runtime Attribute. I was able to make the button look as I wanted, but I wanted to know if there was a way for me to view the list of available attributes for a particular Object.
Clicking the "+" to add a new attribute doesn't provide any kind of auto-complete to show the available ones, and looking through my project code doesn't seem to reveal anything either, not surprisingly. Is there somewhere I can find all of the available attributes for all/any Objects in Xcode? Searches here on SO and in general have not shown any useful results so far.
You can achieve the same thing from code, so just check the properties of UIButton (which is available in the documentation and with autocomplete) and you're good.
You also have to make sure you are checking the properties on an UIButton instance and not the class properties.
User defined runtime attribute is a list of key paths that NIB loading subsystem uses through unarchived process. After initialisation message -setValue:forKeyPath: will be send to your unarchiving object for each key path from this list. So available attributes are not more than set union of all methods with selector sort of -setAttribute: and ivars with "_attribute" or "attribute" name.
All that public attributes you may find at public headers or documentation.
There's also possible to set private attributes, but it's not good practice. For instance, you may find all ivars by breakpoint execution inside any method and look inside "self".
I am trying to implement component for possibility to apply different skins to views and controllers at runtime without reinitialising these controls. I want to use such logic:
Declare protocol with methods for applying skins.
All necessary classes implements this protocol.
When user selects skin all instances of classes that conform to protocol receive message to apply skin.
So I know how to get all necessary classes that conform to my specific protocol by using objc_getClassList and class_conformsToProtocol functions.
But how to get all allocated instances of these classes for sending message to them?
I know that it could be implemented by internal logic of every class by storing all instances in static storage and returning array by class method. But it isn't elegant solution. I'm finding more universal solution where I can add new skinnable controls in easy way.
It sounds very much like you're reinventing <UIAppearance>. You should at least start there. It's what it's for. Also see Peter Steinberger's writeup for discussion of adding custom properties.
To your basic question, there is not a runtime call to enumerate all allocated objects of a class. It would add a lot of overhead to provide that (objects come and go all the time and very quickly). Even if you could do it, you probably shouldn't. But since you're talking about visible views, then you can always do this by enumerating the view hierarchy under NSWindow. Any views not currently in the view hierarchy should be expected to correctly redraw in an new style the next time they come on the screen.
But I'd start with <UIAppearance>.
I'm currently working on a Rails project, and have found times where it's easiest to do
if object.class == Foo
...
else if object.class == Bar
...
else
...
I started doing this in views where I needed to display different objects in different ways, but have found myself using it in other places now, such as in functions that take objects as arguments. I'm not precisely sure why, but I feel like this is not good practice.
If it's not good practice, why so?
If it's totally fine, when are times that one might want to use this specifically?
Thanks!
Not sure why that works for you at all. When you need to test whether object is instance of class Foo you should use
object.is_a? Foo
But it's not a good practice in Ruby anyway. It'd much better to use polymorphism whenever it's possible. For example, if somewhere in the code you can have object of two different classes and you need to display them differently you can define display method in both classes. After that you can call object.display and object will be displayed using method defined in the corresponding class.
Advantage of that approach is that when you need to add support for the third class or a whole bunch of new classes all you'll need to do is define display method in every one of them. But nothing will change in places where you actually using this method.
It's better to express type specific behavior using subtyping.
Let the objects know how they are displays. Create a method Display() and pass all you need from outside as parameter. Let "Foo" know to display foo and "Bar" know how to display bar.
There are many articles on replacing conditionals with polymorphism.
It’s not a good idea for several reasons. One of them is duck typing – once you start explicitly checking for object class in the code, you can no longer simply pass an instance of a different class that conforms to a similar interface as the original object. This makes proxying, mocking and other common design tricks harder. (The point can be also generalized as breaking encapsulation. It can be argued that the object’s class is an implementation detail that you as a consumer should not be interested in. Broken encapsulation ≈ tight coupling ≈ pain.)
Another reason is extensibility. When you have a giant switch over the object type and want to add one more case, you have to alter the switch code. If this code is embedded in a library, for example, the library users can’t simply extend the library’s behaviour without altering the library code. Ideally all behaviour of an object should be a part of the object itself, so that you can add new behaviour just by adding more object types.
If you need to display different objects in a different way, can’t you simply make the drawing code a part of the object?