Yeah, like I said, I can see the criticism, but I was hoping to avoid the discussion and just stick to the technical issue if it is possible or not.
Now, in my defense, I can say there could be not so pointless features here. Like, I have a nice GUI abstraction, and people may think it's an external and that they can change its properties, but it's not, so it'd be nice to suppress the properties option, I think. And I don't think it's nice to have a useless and pointless canvas properties for a GUI abstraction. Now, if this were an external, it would just not show any properties, because there isn't one, but when it comes to abstractions, we do not have a choice... Moreover, it wouldn't add any dependency, as this would be for my external library, and the abstraction already has dependencies to other externals in the library. Now, regarding the clicking thing, I thought one could use it to not only prevent from opening, but also make the object react and do something when clicked. Again, this is something we can do with externals, as you can program an object to react to clicking. In cyclone we have [loadmess] that outputs a loaded message when clicked. In else I have [loadbanger] that can send bangs when clicked. People would still be able to open and check the abstraction. The documentation would still mention the object is an abstraction and that you can check it out. Now, this [protect_against_open] object is indeed funny. But it doesn't interfere with the right click options, and is just kinda hardcore, as it'll just close the patch you're working on if you include it, and it also seems it won't ever let you open a subpatch again :) and I can't help but think about this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqAUmgE3WyM haha Anyway, I'm now throwing a few balls in the air here, like how to prevent from opening when clicking, how to make it respond to clicking, and how to change the right clicking options and suppress some of them (specially properties). So, one thing at a time, and let me focus on technical issue about being possible or not to suppress the properties option, for starters. So, what do you say? I have my doubts it's even possible, and I figure if there is a way, it's probably not too trivial. thanks 2018-03-06 14:41 GMT-03:00 Dan Wilcox <danomat...@gmail.com>: > It also goes against one the best things about Pd: peeking under the hood > for abstractions. Are adding dependencies/workarounds really worth the time > for something that is at most a "nice to have"? (I ask myself this more and > more the older I get...) > > On Mar 6, 2018, at 6:31 PM, pd-list-requ...@lists.iem.at wrote: > > but if you just want to prevent users from opening up objects in your > publicly facing installation > > > Nope, the idea is just try and make an abstraction behave like a compiled > external. I know some people might think that's crazy, ludicrous, > pointless, stupid, counterproductive, shameful and just bad... but... I > liked the idea :) > > > -------- > Dan Wilcox > @danomatika <http://twitter.com/danomatika> > danomatika.com > robotcowboy.com > > > >
_______________________________________________ Pdemail@example.com mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list