Summary: Previous @since tags have already been removed from eo files.
Test Plan: Everything builds, but stable classes now have Since tags in the docs.
Reviewers: zmike, bu5hm4n
Reviewed By: bu5hm4n
Subscribers: cedric, #reviewers, #committers
Tags: #efl
Differential Revision: https://phab.enlightenment.org/D8446
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
Summary:
Instead of surrounding all the #include "*.eo.h" lines in Efl.h
with #ifdef EFL_BETA_API_SUPPORT, include these files unconditionally, but mark
all classes as @beta in the eo files.
This will allow taking them out of beta one by one as we deem them stable enough.
Otherwise, the current procedure involves moving the #include line out of the
ifdef block, which is cumbersome and messes include order.
Depends on D7950
Fixes T7692
Test Plan: Nothing changes
Reviewers: zmike, bu5hm4n, cedric
Subscribers: #reviewers, #committers
Tags: #efl
Maniphest Tasks: T7692
Differential Revision: https://phab.enlightenment.org/D7951
This reverts commit a57c7f7510.
I pretty much hate to just revert your revert, but you failed to read my
replies, and failed to understand what i was talking about.
And YES we talked at fosdem about the platform issue, and do you
remember my answer, that back in time this might be the case, today is
different freebsd suppoerts setenv, and for windows we have a setenv
implementation in evil. And yes, vtorri also created a issue how bad and
evil this commit is, however, i still fail to see the issue since setenv
unsetenv and clearenv usages are taken as needed. (T7693)
The ownership question is answered in
https://phab.enlightenment.org/D7516#137367.
Can we please get into a state of technical discussions, and not *oh
shit, i am going to revert this* this has been in review for a long
time, a lots of people have tested it, we discussed things on it, and
there was 3 weeks of no reply from you.
The issues that exist will be dealed with. Feel free to create tasks if
you want :)
Revert "ecore: get rid of commands in efl_task."
This reverts commit 616381e9cf.
Revert "ecore: here comes a command line object"
This reverts commit 48e5684b3c.
1. this is broken:
EOLIAN static const char*
_efl_core_command_line_command_get(const Eo *obj EINA_UNUSED, Efl_Core_Command_Line_Data *pd)
{
return eina_strdup(pd->string_command);
}
it returns a const char * BUT it duplicates it on return. no. a big
fat honking NO. return a char * or don't duplicate. pick.
2. _efl_core_command_line_command_array_set() is broken by design. it
accepts an array of strings, but the strings are owned by the caller
who creates the array (requiring they free them up themselves after
this call) but the array becomes owned by the callee. the code here frees the
incoming array but doesn't care about the string content of it. it's
leak heaven waiting to happen (or bugs when someone wants to access
the array they create to walk it to free the strings they put into it
after it is set).
i brought this up and it was dismissed. now exactly he issue i brought
up is there with mixed ownership and the added complexity as well as
transfer of some ownership but not others.
go back and think about this so it isn't broken by design.
Note that the usage in efl_thread.c should and could be removed.
the problem with its usage is that when the ARGUMENTS event is fired,
noone ever had the chance to subscribe to the loop of the thread yet. So
all in all this is unneccessary, since noone could ever touch that.
Differential Revision: https://phab.enlightenment.org/D7517
this event is called on the app object when all windows have been destroyed
so that the app can decide to take further action, e.g., doing a deep clean of
cache or flushing configuration
@feature
ref T5494
Reviewed-by: Cedric BAIL <cedric.bail@free.fr>
Differential Revision: https://phab.enlightenment.org/D7593
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
Summary:
All events must have a type now, otherwise bindings don't know how to handle
the event_info field.
Most of the missing event types were actually "void" (no event_info present).
Some struct definitions had to be moved to eo instead of h files, so they
are available to bindings. Some have not, and are marked with FIXME.
Some namespaces have been fixed (like Efl_Event_Cb -> Efl.Event_Cb).
In general, there are hundreds of changed files, but mostly to add a type which
was not present before, so there's no harm done.
Also, A lot of FIXMEs have been added which should be, like, fixed.
For example, some events can send different types of event_info, which is
very inconvenient (and error prone).
Test Plan: make with c# bindings works, make check and make examples work too.
Reviewers: cedric, q66, lauromoura
Subscribers: zmike
Tags: #efl
Differential Revision: https://phab.enlightenment.org/D6169
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.
Xavi Artigas
Marcel Hollerbach
Carsten Haitzler
WooHyun Jung
Mike Blumenkrantz
Daniel Kolesa
Cedric Bail
Mike Blumenkrantz