Subject: Re: XP code (take 2)
From: Mike Nordell (tamlin@algonet.se)
Date: Wed Feb 14 2001 - 12:52:23 CST
Hubert Figuiere":
> At 11:17 -0500 13/02/01, Dom Lachowicz wrote:
> >Let me say this now: Implementing our own "widget set" is a *very
> >bad* idea. If you're thinking about doing this, port us to wxWindows
> >instead.
I just want to understand exactly what Dom is commenting on here.
Was this comment more like "don't make up our own widgets for us to draw
ourselves" or was it like "Don't invent e.g. a new class MXGroup just
because this is what radio buttons logically is, and don't let each
platforms XP (XAP) code handle the creation, selection and so on for such a
Mutually Exclusive group of radio buttons"?
If the latter, I can't really agree since a group of radio buttons is in
fact an MXGroup (Mutually Exclusive). If enabled, exactly one button is
selected. Logically it's like a drop-list style combobox (i.e. without
manual editing by typoing on something new), only that's its visually spread
on a larger area. (not that I only used this MXGroup as an example to
display what can happen when one starts to _think_ about the commonly used
display/input paradigms in "what they are and do" instead of "how they
look").
> I'm not talking about something like WxWindows. Just some helpers
> that provide widget level granularity to help manage dialogs in XP
> code. Just because currently we have HWND for Win32, GtkWidget * for
> UNIX, BControl * for BeOS, ControlHandle for MacOS, and so on. And
> this prevent doing functionnal management of these inside XP code.
This seems to be along the line what we tried to do for the Lists Dialog. At
least in part.
> I volunteer to build the XP classes along with their MacOS implementation.
I'd be interested in your thoughts about design and implementation since
this is very much in line with my current efforts.
/Mike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Wed Feb 14 2001 - 12:52:09 CST