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
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Reply via email to