byorgey:
What's the current status on this? Don? Spencer?
Currently Spencer's out of action, and expressed some doubts, which is making it hard to reach a consensus here.
Summary so far:
* Andrea's patch moves runLayout into the LayoutClass, changing the signature slightly so that layouts receive all possible information. * This would necessitate updating all *users* of LayoutClass to use runLayout instead of doLayout/emptyLayout. The patches for these changes are already available. * New instances of LayoutClass can choose whether to implement runLayout, doLayout, or pureLayout, and so on. Existing instances of LayoutClass will not be affected (except those that are also users of it, e.g. LayoutModifier). * This provides a nice solution (IMO the best) for PerWorkspace.
Also:
* If this patch is applied to the core, I am willing to take responsibility for making sure the contrib library is updated appropriately, and that thorough documentation is made available to guide those wishing to understand the architecture of the LayoutClass. * David and I think this is elegant and should be applied. (See David's prior e-mail for an excellent discussion of some of the issues involved.) * Spencer has voiced discomfort with the style of this change to the API. * Don has not expressed an opinion one way or the other.
I'm happy if Brent and David are on this one.
It would be nice if a decision could be reached on this one way or the other, so we can move ahead with PerWorkspace and other things. I'm not trying to be pushy, just trying to spur things forward in a friendly way.
As Spencer only expressed doubt here, and I'm persuaded by Brent's arguments (and his offering to champion them), let's proceed. -- Don