this is done inorder to ensure that noone ever thinks of creating theire
own app/loop object.
Reviewed-by: Cedric BAIL <cedric.bail@free.fr>
Differential Revision: https://phab.enlightenment.org/D7982
Until this commit eo did class functions as part of the vtable, which
enabled those functions to be overwritten in classes inheriting another
class. However in task T7675 we decided that this is not really good for
bindings, as most OOP languages do not support this sort of feature.
After this commit eolian realizes class function completly outside of
the vtable, the c-symbol that is the class funciton is now just directly
redirecting to a implementation, without the involvement of the vtable.
This also means a change to the syntax created by eo:
Calling before:
class_function(CLASS_A);
Calling after:
class_function();
Implementation before:
class_function(const Eo *obj, void *pd) { ... }
Implementation after:
class_function(void) { ... }
This fixes T7675.
Co-authored-by: lauromauro <lauromoura@expertisesolutions.com.br>
Reviewed-by: Daniel Kolesa <daniel@octaforge.org>
Differential Revision: https://phab.enlightenment.org/D7901
This brings in the possibility to receive the app object from bindings.
With the app object you can listen to pause / args / terminate / resume
events.
fix T7509
Differential Revision: https://phab.enlightenment.org/D7480
This changes a lot of things all across the EFL. Previously,
methods tagged @const had both their external prototype and
internal impl generated with const on object, while property
getters only had const on the external API. This is now changed
and it all has const everywhere.
Ref T6859.
so the MAIN loop is actually an efl.app object. which inherits from
efl.loop. the idea is that other loops in threads will not be efl.app
objects. thread on the creator side return an efl.thread object.
inside the thread, like the mainloop, there is now an efl.appthread
object that is for all non-main-loop threads.
every thread (main loop or child) when it spawns a thread is the
parent. there are i/o pipes from parnet to child and back. so parents
are generally expected to, if they want to talk to child thread, so
use the efl.io interfaces on efl.thread, and the main loop's elf.app
class allows you to talk to stdio back to the parent process like the
efl.appthread does the same using the efl.io interfaces to talk to its
parent app or appthread. it's symmetrical
no tests here - sure. i have been holding off on tests until things
settle. that's why i haven't done them yet. those will come back in a
subsequent commit
for really quick examples on using this see:
https://phab.enlightenment.org/F2983118https://phab.enlightenment.org/F2983142
they are just my test code for this.
Please see this design document:
https://phab.enlightenment.org/w/efl-loops-threads/
This reverts commit 135154303b.
Revert "efl: move signal events from efl.loop to efl.app"
This reverts commit 3dbca39f98.
Revert "efl: add test suite for efl_app"
This reverts commit 3e94be5d73.
Revert "efl: create Efl.App class, the parent of Efl.Loop"
This reverts commit 28fe00b94e.
Go back to before efl.app because I think this should be done with
superclassing here not a parent object. reasons?
1. multiple loops per single thread make no sense. so if multilpe loop
objects they wont be contained in a single app object and then deleted
like this.
2. the app object is not really sharable in this design so it cant be
accessed from other threads
3. it makes it harder to get the main loop or app object (well 2 func
calls one calling the other and more typing. it is longer to type and
more work where it is not necessary, and again it can't work from
other threads unless we go duplicating efl.app per thread and then
what is the point of splittyign out the signal events from efl.loop
then?)
etc.
Marcel Hollerbach
WooHyun Jung
Daniel Kolesa
Cedric Bail
Carsten Haitzler
Mike Blumenkrantz