I have a large scrolling group.
If I set the vScroll of this group to 32780 (or any smaller number),
no problem, works perfectly.
If I set the vScroll of this group to 32781 (or any higher number),
the vScroll is set to zero (and the group scroll jumps to the top).
Not sure if this has anything to do with the below, just thought I'd
include it in the off chance...
So, anyone know wat up?
On May 31, 2006, at 8:24 AM, Richard Gaskin wrote:
Jonathan Lynch wrote:
my psuedo-table object works pretty well - Marielle made it
available on his
site. It addresses many of these concerns.
However, I would not use it for thousands of rows. For a couple
hundred
rows, it works ok, but for 2 or 3 thousand rows - well, that is
just too
many sub groups for the engine to handle quickly.
I've been using nested groups as custom tables for quite some time,
but curious about the threshold for bad behavior I did some testing:
1. Make a group -- two buttons, two fields, each 23px high, in a row
2. Group it, name the group "record"
3. Make a copy of that group, group both groups, and name the new
master
group "main"
4. Make a button with this script:
on mouseUp
put 2113 into n
--
lock screen
lock messages
--
-- delete old groups:
repeat with 1 = the number of grps of grp "main" down to 2
delete grp 2 of grp "main"
end repeat
--
set the vscroll of grp "main" to 0
put 0 into i
if the optionKey is "down" then exit to top
repeat n
add 1 to i
clone grp "record" of grp "main"
set the topleft of it to the bottomleft of grp i of grp "Main"
end repeat
--
put the formattedheight of grp "main"
end mouseUp
What I found is that the number shown above assigned to N is the
max I can create here without odd positioning of objects. If I
exceed that I start getting row groups positioned over other row
groups.
The formattedHeight of the "main" group is shown as 32806 --
suspiciously close to 32767 (32k), the old buffer limit for QuickDraw.
So this may suggest that the internal routines for buffering groups
is either using the old QD API, or has internal limits about the
same as QD's.
It's worth noting that 32,806 is almost 38 feet at 72dpi, which is
plenty for most uses so I can't really call this a bug.
But it might make a useful enhancement request to explore extending
that buffer size.
Or would it? There's already a request for compound-object tables,
so if that gets done will we need position objects for any other
purpose farther than 38 feet in either direction?
--
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
_______________________________________________
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
