On 28/05/07, Richard Gaskin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If you're referring to sub-components within a group which is acting as a custom control, do you really want users to be able to rename those? If there's a need, would it make more sense to do so as a property setting of the containing group, where it could be managed?
An example for me would my my "tree view", or your "table view" - a user may place a couple of these on a card and then want to script them easily. Yes, they can refer to "the tree_Field of group 1". But this is forcing the user to use a new form of syntax which they may not be used to - so I'd like them to be able to rename the field to whatever they like - now the field is part of a group with a title with drop down menus and context menu for the lines... - that group is called the "tree view". For the last few years i have been using name abstraction in the form a look-up table (custom property) in the group -trapping for the nameChanged message to allow this functonality. My thought now is that I can use the altID to the same effect. As for the "custom control" group itself, yes, it should be renamable,
and that should be easy to accommodate.
Yes users can always re-name the top-groups so you can have "the tree_Field of group "First Tree" - that bit is easy - it gets harder when you want to be able to allow arbitrary levels of nesting - for instance a tree view inside of an outline view inside of a layout view. Then if you can name a component (I use the word "view"), you should be able to rename a sub-component. _______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
