I spoke too soon. I tested the revert command in a test project, which had one main stack and one sub stack (the modal), in my real app, I have:
MainStack (Dummy, the window is hidden).
Sub-Stack Top Level Windows - Modeless, usually called up from Menu or Tool Palette.
Sub-Stack Utilitity Level Modal Dialogs, called from button handlers in Top Level Sub-Stacks.
If I issue a "revert" from the Utility level, it reverts back to the main stack, e.g. it reverts the Top Level Window too!
So, is there no way to just have the revert on the current stack, not the whole of the sub-stacks?
Thanks a lot Dave
!!!!!!!!!!THANK YOU SO MUCH!!!!!!!!!!
I just don't know how I missed this command! I was actually trying to see how the IDE did it when you use the "Close and Remove from Memory" command - your email came thru just at the right time!
I just knew there was a "RunRev" oriented way of doing this! Now I have this in place, I can exploit the real Power Behind RunRev, I get more or less for free the ability to treat my data, GUI controls and code as one "unit". To a C/C++ programmer this is REAL POWER! Don't get me wrong you can do this in C/C++ BUT the amount of overhead in code and learning curve is huge! With RR it's already there! For Free! And it's Cross-Platform!!!!!
The "revert" command is the piece of the puzzle I was missing. In fact I should probably NOT do the
"save this stack" operation on the OK button? Since it will be saved when the main stack is saved, correct? The problem was I think, is that I was using positive logic, e.g. something gets saved if and only if you specifically save it (which is a "C" way of thinking) but actually the way that RunRev works is using (in my terms only, not a critisism, but rather a (good) feature), negative logic, e.g. it will be saved anyway, it's up to you to specially STOP it being saved! e.g. I was using the lack of a save command in the cancel handler to stop the data being updated, but of course it already had been updated and I needed to restore it! on cancel! Not, not save it!
On question though, if I place the revert command in a function that is located inside the main stack, will the revert command work on the main stack or the sub stack? I am going to try it anyway, but I'd like to know what is *supposed* to happen.
Thanks again!
All the Best Dave
Diving into this one late, but I think the "revert" command is what you are looking for.
HTH, Brian
I'll look at the stuff you suggested, but it seems like an awful lot of work compared to just reloading the sub-stack from disk if necessary. A simple command like "purgeStack" would surely do the trick?
_______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
_______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution _______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
