From: Tomas Frydrych (tomasfrydrych_at_yahoo.co.uk)
Date: Thu Mar 18 2004 - 02:16:06 EST
> > Please, from now on do not access any static
> > functions inside
> > GR_Graphics and GR_Win32Graphics by their fully
> > qualified names. For
> > example instead of calling XAP_App::getApp(), use
> > getApp().
> Why? IMO, XXX::getApp() should be removed. There is
> only ever 1 instance of an XAP_Application object.
> There should not be FV_View::getApp() or
> GR_Graphics::getApp() methods.
> Why/how would the graphics' application differ from
> the program's app?
Sure, there is only one instance of the app, but that is not the
issue here. When compiling a graphics plugin, gr_Graphics.cpp has to
be compiled into the resulting (stand-alone) module, and the linker
for the plugin module cannot resoves static XAP_App::getApp() to
anything (since it does not live in the compiled files). The plugin
needs to be given a pointer to the app instance when loaded and use
At the moment, the pointer is set by the constructors, which is
unnecessary; it would be enough to initialise it in the first call to
GR_Graphics constructor for the buil-in classes and in the plugin
loader for plugins. I was contemplating changing GR_Graphics::m_pApp
to a static member and remove XAP_App * from the parameters of all
the constructors, but as there was a good chance of some platform
breakage, I have decided not to for now (I have caused enough
breakage in the past couple of weeks :)).
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Mar 18 2004 - 02:18:26 EST