Robert Brenstein wrote:
Jeanne,
It got 5 of my votes as well.
But I think there is more confusion here.
A
I believe Open Stack and Close Stack should be symmetrical. In other
words, Close Stack should reverse the results of Open Stack. Open
Stack 1. loads the stack into memory, 2. makes the stack visible on
the screen, and 3. locks other users out of the stack. Close Stack
should (in opposite order) 1. release the stack to the next user, 2.
remove the stack image from the screen, and 3. purge the stack from
memory. Close Stack should always purge, there should be no
"destroyStack" or "purgeOnClose" option. This would be logical,
elegant, consistent, predictable, simpler, and visible (you would not
end up with hidden stacks in memory that you didn't know were there).
B
In addition to a Purge, or Purge Main Stack command, I'd like to see
a Load Stack command - symmetrical with purge. "Load" is short,
describes the operation, and is already used by Transcript for URLs.
Load Stack would place a copy of a stack in memory (without opening
it), Purge Main Stack would remove it.
C
I believe stacks should only be put into memory by opening or loading
- not by referencing. This would be logical, elegant, consistent,
predictable, simpler, and visible. There is not (and should not be) a
Dereference command! By being forced to load stacks before working on
them we will always be reminded to purge them and we will not have
stacks in memory which we put there unaware.
Let's bury "destroyStack" permanently.
Paul Looney
Sounds good to me, Paul, but you need to accommodate closing stack
window as opposed to closing stack. We have now:
close with destroyStack off = close stack window
close with destroyStack on = close stack window, remove stack from memory
We still need to be able to do the former. Hide stack comes to mind as a
solution, of course, but making a stack as invisible is now subtly
different than closing it without removal from memory.
If I understand Paul's suggestion correctly, I believe that's covered
under his request for a "load" command.
His thinking is not unlike something we all go through learning Rev: in
any other app closing a window ultimately purges the data presented in
it from memory.
As much as I like (and often rely on) the current stay-resident behavior
I wouldn't mind if it were optional, with the default being the more
intuitive purge.
Of course backward compatibility is a whole other issue, so at best we
might hope for some global flag to allow the old behavior to be
sustained for legacy stacks without requiring an explicit "load".
--
Richard Gaskin
Managing Editor, revJournal
_______________________________________________________
Rev tips, tutorials and more: http://www.revJournal.com
_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
[email protected]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
