Hello, My application has to handle configuration data for some machine types. Some machines are programmable graphically, some by config dialogs. The data gets compiled and uploaded to the machine. Of course future machine types will require new dialogs or enhanced graphical programming features.
My customer would prefer to have the same file extension for all machine types. File type would be decided by file internal header (some magic bytecode). Regarding file internal representation, we are still flexible. Machines can be grouped in projects. Project files (they just contain file names etc. of machines, no machine configs) have separate file extension and file format. The project handling exists as prototype. Now I think about the cooperation with the a2dDocumentCommandProcessor for the individual machines. >From a2d point of view, how many document template and view templates would >that be? Should I try to squeeze all machine types in one doc template and some views? Then I would have to allow only the applicable view. Or two file extensions (doc templates), one for graphics, one for dialogs? Should I intercept the dialog types and handle them entirely myself? Is it possible(reasonable) to have a view without canvas, just a common wxPanel with the usual controls? What's your ideas or recommendations? Thank you very much! Michael ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Enter the BlackBerry Developer Challenge This is your chance to win up to $100,000 in prizes! For a limited time, vendors submitting new applications to BlackBerry App World(TM) will have the opportunity to enter the BlackBerry Developer Challenge. See full prize details at: http://p.sf.net/sfu/Challenge _______________________________________________ Wxart2d-users_dev mailing list Wxart2d-users_dev@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wxart2d-users_dev
