From kde-devel  Thu Aug 12 09:46:54 1999
From: Simon Hausmann <tronical () gmx ! net>
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 09:46:54 +0000
To: kde-devel
Subject: Re: KOM Aggregation question
X-MARC-Message: https://marc.info/?l=kde-devel&m=93445027702015

On Wed, 11 Aug 1999, Bavo De Ridder wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 11, 1999 at 05:29:29PM +0200, Simon Hausmann wrote:
> > On Wed, 11 Aug 1999, Bavo De Ridder wrote:
> > 
> > > Hello,
> > > 
> > > If I have the following interface:
> > > 
> > > interface MyInterface : KOM::Component, MyBaseInterface
> > > {
> > > }
> > > 
> > > If I call MyInterface's GetInterface( "MyBaseInterface" ) will 
> > > this return an object pointer to the MyInterface object itself ?
> > > 
> > > Or will KOM complain about not finding the interface (assuming I
> > > haven't added the MyBaseInterface to the aggregation containers).
> > 
> > You have to tell KOM about this builtin aggregate.
> > 
> > Use ADD_INTERFACE( "foo" ) in  the constructor.
> > 
> 
> This is exactly what I thought after reading the source. Thanx for the respons !
> 
> Shouldn't this be in the constructor of Component ? It should be possible, together with the
> IR, to deduce all implemented interfaces.

I don't know the 100% exact reason why Torben didn't use the IR, but I
guess it's not really worth to add much IR handling code (just for
builtin aggregates...), instead of the current approach of a simple list
of derived interfaces, accessible either directly or via the ADD_INTERFACE
macro.

It's perhaps also a matter of taste ( or lazyness? ) ;-)

Bye,
 Simon ( *very* happy with ADD_INTERFACE() :-)