Summary:
For now, how to check whether a widget is legacy or not
is to check flags in private data or static flag, which is set
during elm_legacy_add.
If Efl.Ui.Legacy interface is added, it can be easilly checked
by efl_isa(obj, EFL_UI_LEGACY_INTERFACE)
Reviewers: woohyun, jpeg, cedric, Jaehyun_Cho
Subscribers: conr2d, cedric, jpeg
Differential Revision: https://phab.enlightenment.org/D5748
Summary:
https://phab.enlightenment.org/T5900
Creating base class(efl_ui_spin) to support various shape of spinner.
Added button interaction widget efl_ui_spin_button inherited from efl_ui_spin.
Test Plan: Add tests in elementary_test.
Reviewers: Jaehyun_Cho, woohyun, jpeg, singh.amitesh
Subscribers: jenkins, id213sin, cedric, jpeg
Differential Revision: https://phab.enlightenment.org/D5424
Some names have not been changed, hopefully making a distinction
between legacy APIs and internal code (elm_layout_blah) and valid EO
usages.
This means many internal functions are still elm_layout_ as their
sole purpose is to support the legacy API.
Ref T5315
elm_layout_sizing_eval() marks an object as requiring recalc.
Unfortunately, it's been massively abused by various widgets into
actually doing the calc, or the min calc. So we end up with one API
that has 3 different definitions depending on the widget type:
1. Mark as requiring recalc (correct, respects doc, elm_layout)
2. Calculate min size and other size hints
3. Actually do some geometry modification
I believe we need to clarify these 3 requirements into 3 very clear
and specific APIs in elementary. Right now we have similar functions
in evas for 1 (evas_object_smart_changed) and 3 (smart_calculate).
But their exact definition also isn't necessarily what we want for
elementary.
Another clear problem is that layout_eval does not do any calculation
(in theory), so the "eval" word is a bit of a stretch here.
Once we're sure about the exact API we want, we can add this back to
EO and make it work across our EO widgets. For now let's just keep
the legacy API, and its EO overrides, as is.
Ref T5315
Now you can't use the same syntax as you would for a method to
implement a property as whole, instead you need to specify the
getter and/or setter explicitly. This is to allow parent classes
to expand their properties without altering behavior of the child
classes.
Summary:
Elm.Widget.event_callback_add conflicts with Efl.Object.event_callback_add.
To solve this problem, "widget_" prefix is added to methods starting with
"event".
Reviewers: cedric, jpeg
Differential Revision: https://phab.enlightenment.org/D4521
This lets me narrow down the remaining cases of pointers across the EFL.
The void pointers will later need to be reevaluated on per-case basis and
replaced appropriately where possible/feasible.
Complex types (i.e. list, array, hash, accessor etc.) now do not require
pointers with them anymore (the pointer is implied) and the same goes for
class handles. Eolian now explicitly disallows creating pointers to these
as well. This is the first part of the work to remove pointers from Eolian
completely, with the goal of simplifying the DSL (higher level) and therefore
making it easier for bindings (as well as easier API usage).
@feature
Previously events used to use class name as a prefix and ignored eo_prefix
when specified. This is no longer the case. Events follow eo_prefix by default
now. In order to get around this for classes where this is undesirable, a new
field event_prefix was added which takes priority over eo_prefix. If neither
is specified, class name is used like previously.
@feature
Sungtaek Hong
Amitesh Singh
Woochan Lee
Lukasz Stanislawski
Marcel Hollerbach
Jean-Philippe Andre
Daniel Kolesa
Jee-Yong Um
Stefan Schmidt
Tom Hacohen
Yeshwanth Reddivari
Cedric BAIL