On Nov 25, 2012 6:49 PM, "ALAN GAULD" <alan.ga...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > CC'ing the list... >
Oops, my bad. I forget to hit Reply All. >> >> I know you can use images instead of text with Labels, like you can with Buttons. >> The advantage of a Text widget, in this case, is that you can use both in the same widget. >> That way, I don't need to worry about how widgets are displayed, shuffled around, and >> undisplayed during runtime. One widget should handle everything. >> > Don't get hung up on the number of widgets. In the scheme of things widgets are not > expensive. Create them as you need them, delete them when you are done. Layout > managers are there to manage the layout for you. if you can define the layout in terms > of a grid then you can fill the grid with blanks to hold the shape and add/remove > widgets as you like. > > If you use pack you can either force the containing frame to a fixed size or allow it > to grow/shrink with the widgets. Either approach can work. >> >> This is standard? That's interesting to know. The biggest issue I'm having here is scalability. >> Each new spread is going to need a new frame widget, which in turn will need >> (number of cards in spread)*2 more widgets. >> > But that's how many? If its getting up beyond a couple of thousand then you might > have a problem. If its less than a hundred its not an issue. In between you might want > to be a bit clever. Well, that depends entirely on how many spreads I'll eventually have, and the average number of cards per spread. Celtic Cross, for example, is a ten card spread, so it needs 21 widgets by itself. A hundred widgets is reached with just 10 spreads averaging 4.5 cards each. I expect, ultimately, to have more than that. >> >> As noted above, the Text widget solution only needs one. >> > Actually it probably needs more. Each image is a widget too, so you just organise > the widgets inside a Text instead of inside a Frame or Canvas. Is that how it works on the source level, or "under the hood"? The code makes it look like I'm only writing one widget, with multiple text and image elements within it, but perhaps I'm misunderstanding something. The approach I'm taking now is a Label widget, containing a single string constructed with elements from lists. I'm hoping that I can take the same approach using a single Text widget, and just convert every other string element from a filename to an image. >All these things are > just containers for more widgets. Frames are designed to hold widgets, end of story. > Text is designed to *display* images and text - usually within a Frame. Canvas is > designed to *display* images and graphics shapes. If you want your images joined > or surrounded by lines/circles etc then go with Canvas. If you need to include > explanatory text around the images use a Text. If you want to create a reusable > widget that you can use in multiple screens or hot swap with other variants of > the same go with a Frame and build a display widget hierarchy. If you just want to > display a bunch of images it doesn't matter much which one you pick. > Then it seems Text it is. Perhaps later in development, Frames and/or Canvases might be appropriate for more complex designs. > I repeat, don't sweat over the widget count, that's not usually an issue. > > Alan G. > Thanks!
_______________________________________________ Tutor maillist - Tutor@python.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/tutor
