Evil, evil wxPython (and a glimmer of hope)

[vivainio]

I rarely do GUIs, and reminded myself today why that is the case
(simply, it's not fun).

I implemented a simple TreeCtrl, and had to implement my own 'children'
method, of all things!

Here it is:

def children(self,n ode):
c = []
nc,cookie = self.GetFirstCh ild(node)
while 1:
info = self.GetItemTex t(nc)
c.append((info, nc))

nc, cookie= self.GetNextChi ld(node,cookie)
if not nc.IsOk():
break

return c
And it even fails with zero children. This is as unpythonic as it gets.

However, it should be pretty easy to write small wrapper over the
wxPython api. I'm thinking of wrapping or injecting additional methods
to TreeCtrl that start with lowercase letters and return something
sensible, with reasonable methods. Something like:

root = self.AddRoot("r oot dir") # root is normal wx TreeCtrl root
tree = EasyWx(root) # now tree is our wrapped, more "fun" root
for c in tree.children() :
print c.name

# etc. etc.

This is a bit like Brian Orendorff's "path" module that turns something
low level to something you can use easily, without throwing you into a
world of "frameworks ", toolkits and whatnot. I can see there are things
like Wax or PythonCard, but they are still too "frameworky ", and you
don't use them to extend wxPython, you use *them* and they use
wxPython. I'd basically like to rely on something that is there for the
long haul (plain wxPython API) but only use convenience wrappers *on my
own initiative*, as it seems convenient. Just like I'd use the "path"
module.

wxPython is great as it is (a simple wrapper for a C++ toolkit) and the
basic design is ok & proven, I'm just too lazy to use it in its current
form.

[Fuzzyman]

vi******@gmail. com wrote:

vi******@gmail. com wrote:

Fuzzyman wrote:

The code is relatively simple - so it would be easy to maintain the
parts you use if that was necessary. Certainly easier than duplicating
it yourself from scratch. :-)

Sounds convincing, I'll give it a shot after all.

Ok, after brief eyeballing & experimenting, it appears that Wax is just
what I was looking for. The code is simple, concise and trivially
understandable, the level of wrapping seems about right, and examples
are helpful.

I'm glad I came whining about this in c.l.py instead of sucking it up
or switching toolkits altogether. :-)

That's good news. I'm about to start using Wax on a couple of
small(ish) projects - so it's nice to know about other users.

All the best,

Fuzzyman
http://www.voidspace.org.uk/python/index.shtml

[Torsten Bronger]

Hallöchen!

"Fuzzyman" <fu******@gmail .com> writes:

vi******@gmail. com wrote:

vi******@gmail. com wrote:

[...]

Ok, after brief eyeballing & experimenting, it appears that Wax
is just what I was looking for. The code is simple, concise and
trivially understandable, the level of wrapping seems about
right, and examples are helpful.

[...]

That's good news. I'm about to start using Wax on a couple of
small(ish) projects - so it's nice to know about other users.

Has Wax exceeded the critical mass so that one can be quite certain
that it will still be maintained, say, next year? (Sincere question
since I don't know.)

Tschö,
Torsten.

--
Torsten Bronger, aquisgrana, europa vetus ICQ 264-296-646

[Ville Vainio]

Torsten Bronger wrote:

Has Wax exceeded the critical mass so that one can be quite certain
that it will still be maintained, say, next year? (Sincere question
since I don't know.)

I was a bit worried about this myself, but after browsing the source I
have to say I'm not terribly so anymore. It's a relatively thin wrapper
over wxPython so you are *almost* using wxPython, but w/o a lot of the
pain & horror, and if Hans Nowak stopped paying attention to it the
maintenance tab could be picked up by someone else rather easily. Also,
wxPython 2.6 is a relatively recent arrival and it's supported, so the
next "breakage point" is relatively far away.

Frankly, I think the time saved by coding for Wax could even exceed the
hypothetical time wasted (in case Wax were discontinued) porting a
finished Wax-using product over to use straight wxPython.

Using Wax (and occasionally peeking at the source) also seems to be a
nice way to learn straight wxPython without being immersed in all the
grossness at once. ;-)