On Donnerstag, 7. November 2019 23:02:17 CET Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 12:14 PM Berthold Stoeger > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > It doesn't have to. Just like you defined a proxy model on top of the > > DiveListModel, one could implement a proxy model on top of the tree model > > that "linearizes" it. > > Maybe we should do that in general, even for the desktop case. > > I don't think there is any major reason why the model should contain > all the dives. In many ways it would be much better if the model only > contains the *visible* dives, and we'd have a totally flat model, > where a trip (whether it's a collapsed header only, or the header for > a list of dives that has been exposed) is just a special model entry.
My idea would be to not store any dives at all in the model. Ideally, the model would be a simple glue layer between Qt's widgets and the core. If I remember correctly, we're already quite close to where this is possible. The QTreeView does lazy evaluation: It will not access child nodes of non-expanded trips. Berthold _______________________________________________ subsurface mailing list [email protected] http://lists.subsurface-divelog.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/subsurface
