Okay, so I've been doing some fiddling with my app to test some of
the fancier HTML rendering capabilities of the non-WxHTMLWindow HTML
widgets (mozilla and webkit) and I hit what I'd consider a pretty big
annoyance -- these things aren't drop-in replacements for

That is, the basic HTML option in Wx is a window, while WxMozilla and
WxWebKit are both controls. Can't swap in one for another. (And yeah,
I know, the method names are different, but that's easy enough to
deal with)

Anyway, since I wrote both the Wx::Mozilla and Wx::WebKit wrappers, I
can make things a little different. The question here is, what'd be
best? Would it be better to:

1) Have Wx::Mozilla and Wx::WebKit widgets be windows or panels, and
basically be compatible with WxHTMLWindow in usage? (Which'd make the
perl versions different than the underlying C++ widgets)

2) Add in a compatibility class in the distributions that provides a
window or panel version of the widgets in addition to the control
version they are by default

3) Leave it as is and fix it in my app shims since nobody much cares anyway. :)

I'll admit to being tempted towards option #2, with some
WxHTML-compatible methods thrown in as an extra (WebKit has
SetPageSource rather than SetPage to send HTML to the widget, for
example) but I'm not sure if that's really the best way to go about

Suggestions'd be greatly appreciated, thanks. :)

--------------------------------------it's like this-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
dan@sidhe.org have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk

Search Discussions

Discussion Posts

Follow ups

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
posts ‹ prev | 1 of 3 | next ›
Discussion Overview
groupwxperl-users @
postedApr 28, '06 at 4:27p
activeApr 28, '06 at 5:59p



site design / logo © 2019 Grokbase