Hey Hermet,

My comments are inlined.

On Wed, 2011-02-02 at 12:28 +0000, ChunEon Park wrote:
> 
> 1. If it looks ugly cause of the gray box for the disabled item, 
> 
> I will send a patch to back the design. I didn't think it's ugly and
> would not be matter. 

Thanks :P
> 
>  
> 
> 2. why it removed the arrow at the angle? 
> 
> Original ctxpopup did not support the arrow at the angle.  if it
> supported the concept, 
> 
> then the users of ctxpopup would have problems.  I tried
> do prevent the problem at that time first. 
> 
> Now, we can consider about supporting  arrow at the angle. 

I don't really care just was interested because this is part of the
things lost in your change.
> 
>  
> 
> 3. why it ditched the elm_list? 
> 
> =>  here is the email when i sent it for ditching the elm_list. 
> 
>  
> 
> ====================================================
> 
> Hi, this is Hermet. 
> 
> Here code is for the ctxpopup. 
> 
> Since the functionalities of ctxpopup are somewhat different, 
> I'm trying to overwrite the ctxpopup code entirely first. 
> 
> The main reason is, 
> Original ctxpopup could determine it's size and position by itself.
> Of course, upstreamed version supports this. But it can not be reduced
> it's
> size
> And it supposes the arrow position to center of box edje. 
> 
> Basically, 
> This version calculates it's box size first then find available space
> from
> the it's position. 
> The origin position of the box is not expected, it finds the available
> positions. 
> But if there is not enough space to be shown, then it finds a best
> direction
> to be shown again.
> In this case, it reduces it's size also as to be shown entirely. 
> Since the ctxpopup supports scroller, the reduced box could show the
> all
> items also. 
> (The point is ctxpopup should know the size of total items...)
> 
> I'm not sure the upstreamed version could cover the above scenario, 
> If then, I need to modify it first.
> 
> Or not, please review this code. It should have a review definitely. 
> 
> Thanks. 

This sounds useful enough to be added to elm_list/genlist and also
fairly simple to add. (i.e get wanted/max size according to child).
Doing it in elm_list/genlist would make everything a lot simpler.
This reduces code duplication (implementing a list in two different
places) which in turn makes bug fixing a lot easier (bug spotted in list
will affect everything), makes the code smaller (thus less footprint in
memory/cache) and simpler to understand.

I honestly think those changes should be reverted, but maybe I just
didn't understand you correctly.

--
Tom.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Special Offer-- Download ArcSight Logger for FREE (a $49 USD value)!
Finally, a world-class log management solution at an even better price-free!
Download using promo code Free_Logger_4_Dev2Dev. Offer expires 
February 28th, so secure your free ArcSight Logger TODAY! 
http://p.sf.net/sfu/arcsight-sfd2d
_______________________________________________
enlightenment-devel mailing list
enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel

Reply via email to