[Dev] application.dialogs.Util.ok vs. wxMessageBox

[John Anderson]

If you look at the following dialogs in Util: ok, okCancel, yesNo, 
yesNoCancel, their APIs are functionally subsets of wx.MessageBox, 
however, the wx.MessageBox API is more convient and flexible.

Perhaps whoever wrote these APIs didn't know about the wx.MessageBox 
API, otherwise I suspect they'd just use it -- or at least not require 
the usually unnecessary parent argument and implement their new API 
variations with wx.MessageBox.

One of Chandler's strengths is that it includes many different open 
source libraries. When one of those libraries has an API that is right 
for the job, I think we should use it, only including new layers of API 
if they provide a real tangible benefit. This eliminates code that we 
would otherwise have to document and maintain.

It's probably much more likely that a Python programmer coming to the 
project will be familiar with wx.MessageBox API than the Chandler 
variants. When one of them asks us why we didn't just use wx.MessageBox, 
I hope it isn't just because we didn't know about wx.MessageBox.

John

Grant Baillie wrote:

> On Jan 6, 2006, at 18:27, John Anderson wrote:
>
>>> I think that exposing wx as a public API is a bad idea, it should  
>>> just be an implementation detail.
>>
>>
>> Does that mean for every wx routine that a parcel writer could use  
>> use we have to implement a wrapper routine? That's potentially a  
>> large portion of wx.
>
>
> IMHO, you should be able to write a fairly basic parcel without  
> needing to know wx; i.e. we should cover the most commonly  
> encountered dialogs. Curiously, if I were to come up with a list of  
> those, it would pretty much match what's in Util.py.
>
> --Grant
>
>
> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
>
> Open Source Applications Foundation "Dev" mailing list
> http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/dev