On Mon, 2007-12-03 at 09:24 +0100, Mathias Bauer wrote:
> IMHO we just need some coordination.
Then we all agree ! :-) bother - there was some serious flameage
potential in this one.
> I didn't read Christian's statement as a plea to do everything in one
> step, as I understood he just opted for agreeing on the general goal.
Sure, binning modal dialogs is a great goal to have; it's just not our
goal just now. Of course - working together towards that wherever
possible makes total sense.
> But it would be good and nice to actually start now with some of
> them. As an example, I would like to convert all "Format-whatever"
> dialogs into parts of a formatting pane. In fact we are currently
> discussing ways to implement that with the developers from RedFlag2000.
> And we will need the layouter for this. (*)
This sounds cool; and of course the layouter can do that for you; I
guess co-ordination-wise, the first step is to get awtfixes1 included -
and then, the 1st cut of the layout/ code into a CWS, split & integrated
where sensible into toolkit/ and that merged.
> It would be great to have the layouter as a
> code unit usable for new work first, so that we can create new UI based
> on it. Converting the dialogs as you started is no contradiction to
> that, it's a supplement.
Sure :-)
> (BTW: the Zoom dialog perhaps isn't the best choice as it will be
> replaced in OOo3.0.)
Oh; good stuff - and nice to know.
> >From my own experience I *know* that for many dialogs this API can work
> and in different form it works that way already. A good example are the
> mentioned "Format - ... " dialogs that currently communicate with the
> applications exactly that way (not using Any but SfxItemSets - just the
> same thing in a different shape).
Well - but the SfxItemSets themselves are often not simply construted
by a plain dialog (I imagine) - there is code in that dialog that deals
with the various exclusions, extensions and so on that inevitably drift
into such cases: "Indiviual words" is only an option when Font Effects
is not "without" or whatever, or "Raise/lower by" is only set when
either super/sub-script and not 'Automatic' etc. etc.
> There are counter examples but using a property style API in dialogs
> where possible would be nice. In other cases other APIs may be more
> appropriate. The abstract interfaces we created in our "Dialog Diet"
> work some time ago might be a good hint how some of them can look (in
> case you wanted to stay with C++ interfaces).
Hokay; it would be interesting to read, but as I say - this is not our
focus, certainly not just yet.
> what would you say if the same code that drives the font
> toolbar control was used in the font control in the formatting
> "dialog"?
I'd say code-sharing & complexity reduction rocks ;-)
Anyhow - it sounds like you guys would like to hack on layout, if so -
you're most welcome, there should be no problem with that: though of
course, making that easy requires getting the ABI breakage in awtfixes1
included.
HTH,
Michael.
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
