You can subscribe to this list here.
2005 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
(70) |
Apr
(101) |
May
(24) |
Jun
(15) |
Jul
(1) |
Aug
(2) |
Sep
(1) |
Oct
(5) |
Nov
(5) |
Dec
(30) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2006 |
Jan
(58) |
Feb
(29) |
Mar
(4) |
Apr
(5) |
May
(2) |
Jun
(8) |
Jul
(2) |
Aug
(6) |
Sep
(32) |
Oct
(29) |
Nov
(7) |
Dec
(8) |
2007 |
Jan
(11) |
Feb
(12) |
Mar
(6) |
Apr
(19) |
May
(26) |
Jun
(7) |
Jul
|
Aug
(1) |
Sep
(4) |
Oct
|
Nov
(1) |
Dec
(3) |
2008 |
Jan
(6) |
Feb
(1) |
Mar
(24) |
Apr
(8) |
May
(1) |
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
(1) |
Oct
|
Nov
(1) |
Dec
|
2009 |
Jan
|
Feb
(4) |
Mar
(3) |
Apr
(1) |
May
(52) |
Jun
(11) |
Jul
(5) |
Aug
|
Sep
(1) |
Oct
(4) |
Nov
(3) |
Dec
(4) |
2010 |
Jan
(2) |
Feb
(6) |
Mar
(1) |
Apr
|
May
(5) |
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
(8) |
Oct
(3) |
Nov
(2) |
Dec
|
2011 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
(2) |
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
2012 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
(1) |
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
(6) |
Dec
(2) |
2013 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
(3) |
Dec
|
2015 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
(4) |
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
2016 |
Jan
(2) |
Feb
(1) |
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
From: Sean P. <sea...@ma...> - 2005-03-12 02:54:08
|
On Mar 11, 2005, at 5:10 PM, Ralph Thomas wrote: > Hi there, > > I (think that I) want to add a new type to Adam. My program is MVC > based, and the model is always instanciated from a string (a URL or > serialized model). I understand that I could define a sheet like: > > sheet my_model { > interface: > name : ""; > mime_type: ""; > parent : ""; // will be the model's parent's serialized string > ... > }; > > and then bind widgets to @name or @mime_type (and write the glue code > to hookup name, mime_type and parent to the model). What I'd really > like to do is more like: > > sheet my_sheet { > interface: > my_model : "serialized-model-string"; > }; > > and then bind widgets to @my_model.name or @my_model.mime_type. And > perhaps even change the model string when a button is pressed (e.g.: > make my_model = my_model.parent). Adam supports dictionaries and arrays. So you could do this as: my_model : {name: "", mime_type: "", parent: ""}; You can then refer to an element such as my_model.parent - although there is no binding to a piece of a cell like this (dependencies aren't tracked through the aggregate types). You can also refer to an element in a dictionary with the syntax my_model[@parent]. The advantage here is you can use an expression, my_model[pred ? @parent : @name]. Because you can only bind against a cell (not part of a value) you can split this out: sheet my_sheet { interface: parent: ""; // bind to these name: ""; mime_type: ""; output: my_model <== { name: name, mime_type: mime_type, parent: parent }; // use this as the result. } The image size example takes this approach. At some point I'd like to tackle how to embed a sheet in a sheet (an interesting dependency problem). This approach works pretty well though. Note that from C++ you can set cells in an Adam sheet to any regular type (see the docs on the regular type concept and there is a little blurb about using custom types with Adam in the language reference). By providing functions that generate and operate on your types you can extend Adam with whatever types you want. Sean > > Is this within the scope of Adam? It's not really important that > my_model be a string and something else, it could just as easily be a > special sheet (which my code can recognize and glue to a model > factory). > > Best regards, > Ralph > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide > Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real > users. > Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click > _______________________________________________ > Adobe-source-devel mailing list > Ado...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/adobe-source-devel |
From: Ralph T. <ra...@gm...> - 2005-03-12 01:17:43
|
Hi there, I (think that I) want to add a new type to Adam. My program is MVC based, and the model is always instanciated from a string (a URL or serialized model). I understand that I could define a sheet like: sheet my_model { interface: name : ""; mime_type: ""; parent : ""; // will be the model's parent's serialized string ... }; and then bind widgets to @name or @mime_type (and write the glue code to hookup name, mime_type and parent to the model). What I'd really like to do is more like: sheet my_sheet { interface: my_model : "serialized-model-string"; }; and then bind widgets to @my_model.name or @my_model.mime_type. And perhaps even change the model string when a button is pressed (e.g.: make my_model = my_model.parent). Is this within the scope of Adam? It's not really important that my_model be a string and something else, it could just as easily be a special sheet (which my code can recognize and glue to a model factory). Best regards, Ralph |
From: Ralph T. <ra...@gm...> - 2005-03-12 00:38:19
|
Okay -- now I understand where you want to go. I've been working on a little toolkit which essentially does the same thing. At the moment I have implementations for MacOS and Win32 (I have a GTK+ version, too, but I haven't ported my test tool to X11 yet, so I don't know if it's really up to snuff). The idea you describe (of having "widget styles defined in terms of widget usage, rather than widget appearance") is the only sensible way of writing this, in my experience. How much interaction is there supposed to be between the ui-core code (window_t, button_t...) and application code? Is it all meant to happen through Adam and Eve, is there ever a circumstance where you want to touch a button_t directly from application code? If not, is it important to implement the same C++ interfaces on every platform so long as the interface from Eve is the same? Best regards, Ralph On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 11:01:38 -0800, Foster T. Brereton <fbr...@ad...> wrote: > On Mar 10, 2005, at 11:40p, Ralph Thomas wrote: > > > Are you planning on making the toolkit interface exactly the same for > > Windows and MacOS (so that the same eve files could be used on both > > platforms)? > > Yes. > > We are trying to do more than provide a common API for all platforms. A > point we are trying to achieve is to distill the semantics of these > widgets down to their minimum requirements, completely separated from > platform-specific UI APIs. We then want to conform the ui_core API to > those semantic needs instead of tying it to a specific platform and > forcing the other platforms to "catch up". In this sense, then, all the > platforms are playing "catch up", because there are varying degrees of > functionality across them, and all should strive to achieve good > implementations for these semantics. Obtaining the ideal dimensions of > a widget is a good example of this-- neither platform does it > perfectly, and yet ultimately that is the behavior you are striving > for. > > What we have found is that the client has a specific intention and > purpose for a widget. With APIs that let clients set various attributes > of a widget (font size and style, event handlers, etc) the client will > set these various attributes for each to match this intention. For > example, buttons in palettes will have a certain "look and feel", as > will buttons in a standard dialog, though the "looks and feels" could > be very different between the two. What we are doing with ui_core is > coding the API to the "look and feel" and not to the minutiae of > achieving that look. More formally, we are writing the API to the > behavior requirements (semantics) of the widget, instead of forcing the > client to define those semantics implicitly through their tweaking of > the widget's minor attributes (font size and style, event handlers, > etc). > > As a specific API example, we do not have "set_font_size" anywhere in > the ui_core API. But we do have a more general "set_theme" (which even > now is still not where we want it). Please keep in mind the ui_core API > is in need of a lot of work, but I hope this gives you a general idea > of the direction we are interested in taking it. > > It is a start, we believe a good start, but only a start... > > Blessings, > Foster > > -- > Foster T. Brereton <}}}>< Romans 3:21-26 > A d o b e S o f t w a r e T e c h n o l o g y L a b > "What 99 percent of programmers need to know is not how to build > components but how to use them." -- Alexander Stepanov > > ------------------------------------------------------- > SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide > Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. > Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click > _______________________________________________ > Adobe-source-devel mailing list > Ado...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/adobe-source-devel > |
From: Foster T. B. <fbr...@ad...> - 2005-03-12 00:10:50
|
On Mar 10, 2005, at 11:40p, Ralph Thomas wrote: > Are you planning on making the toolkit interface exactly the same for > Windows and MacOS (so that the same eve files could be used on both > platforms)? Yes. We are trying to do more than provide a common API for all platforms. A point we are trying to achieve is to distill the semantics of these widgets down to their minimum requirements, completely separated from platform-specific UI APIs. We then want to conform the ui_core API to those semantic needs instead of tying it to a specific platform and forcing the other platforms to "catch up". In this sense, then, all the platforms are playing "catch up", because there are varying degrees of functionality across them, and all should strive to achieve good implementations for these semantics. Obtaining the ideal dimensions of a widget is a good example of this-- neither platform does it perfectly, and yet ultimately that is the behavior you are striving for. What we have found is that the client has a specific intention and purpose for a widget. With APIs that let clients set various attributes of a widget (font size and style, event handlers, etc) the client will set these various attributes for each to match this intention. For example, buttons in palettes will have a certain "look and feel", as will buttons in a standard dialog, though the "looks and feels" could be very different between the two. What we are doing with ui_core is coding the API to the "look and feel" and not to the minutiae of achieving that look. More formally, we are writing the API to the behavior requirements (semantics) of the widget, instead of forcing the client to define those semantics implicitly through their tweaking of the widget's minor attributes (font size and style, event handlers, etc). As a specific API example, we do not have "set_font_size" anywhere in the ui_core API. But we do have a more general "set_theme" (which even now is still not where we want it). Please keep in mind the ui_core API is in need of a lot of work, but I hope this gives you a general idea of the direction we are interested in taking it. It is a start, we believe a good start, but only a start... Blessings, Foster -- Foster T. Brereton <}}}>< Romans 3:21-26 A d o b e S o f t w a r e T e c h n o l o g y L a b "What 99 percent of programmers need to know is not how to build components but how to use them." -- Alexander Stepanov |
From: Foster T. B. <fbr...@ad...> - 2005-03-11 20:14:32
|
On Mar 10, 2005, at 11:40p, Ralph Thomas wrote: > Are you planning on making the toolkit interface exactly the same for > Windows and MacOS (so that the same eve files could be used on both > platforms)? Yes. We are trying to do more than provide a common API for all platforms. A point we are trying to achieve is to distill the semantics of these widgets down to their minimum requirements, completely separated from platform-specific UI APIs. We then want to conform the ui_core API to those semantic needs instead of tying it to a specific platform and forcing the other platforms to "catch up". In this sense, then, all the platforms are playing "catch up", because there are varying degrees of functionality across them, and all should strive to achieve good implementations for these semantics. Obtaining the ideal dimensions of a widget is a good example of this-- neither platform does it perfectly, and yet ultimately that is the behavior you are striving for. What we have found is that the client has a specific intention and purpose for a widget. With APIs that let clients set various attributes of a widget (font size and style, event handlers, etc) the client will set these various attributes for each to match this intention. For example, buttons in palettes will have a certain "look and feel", as will buttons in a standard dialog, though the "looks and feels" could be very different between the two. What we are doing with ui_core is coding the API to the "look and feel" and not to the minutiae of achieving that look. More formally, we are writing the API to the behavior requirements (semantics) of the widget, instead of forcing the client to define those semantics implicitly through their tweaking of the widget's minor attributes (font size and style, event handlers, etc). As a specific API example, we do not have "set_font_size" anywhere in the ui_core API. But we do have a more general "set_theme" (which even now is still not where we want it). Please keep in mind the ui_core API is in need of a lot of work, but I hope this gives you a general idea of the direction we are interested in taking it. It is a start, we believe a good start, but only a start... Blessings, Foster -- Foster T. Brereton <}}}>< Romans 3:21-26 A d o b e S o f t w a r e T e c h n o l o g y L a b "What 99 percent of programmers need to know is not how to build components but how to use them." -- Alexander Stepanov |
From: Ralph T. <ra...@gm...> - 2005-03-11 07:40:28
|
Personally I've found Win32 is more honest about control dimensions than MacOS (i.e.: controls don't go outside the rectangle you tell them to stay in, so you don't need the same "fudges" present in the MacOS test/visual code). Win32 doesn't have a GetBestControlRect analog, so you end up writing your own. I've always ended up having to fudge the values given by GetTextExtentPoint32W when calculating the best rectangle for text containing controls (e.g.: button). Are you planning on making the toolkit interface exactly the same for Windows and MacOS (so that the same eve files could be used on both platforms)? Ralph On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 15:50:29 -0800, Sean Parent <sp...@ad...> wrote: > Hi Niki, > Starting to use our stuff is always good - We actually aren't doing > Cocoa at the moment (it's Carbon, although there is some stuff being > done with A&E internally in Cocoa). I would say there are two places > where you could jump in - > > We don't have Python bindings and I think they would be an interesting > thing to have (and probably pretty simple to do - if you look at the > command-line tutorial it is surprisingly simple to hook up). If you > wanted to jump in on the Win32 side - I'd start with working on how to > get good geometry out of controls (coordinate with Foster on that). I'd > also love to have someone doing bindings to XAML. > Sean > > On Mar 9, 2005, at 12:54 AM, Niki Spahiev wrote: > > >> A Win32 backend is definitely on our to do list, however we cannot > >> give > >> it as much time as we would like. There is no reasonable estimate as > >> to > >> when it will be ready for public release. In the meantime you can > >> still > >> see what Adam has to offer in the Adam command-line tutorial that was > >> recently posted to CVS. > > > > Ok but command-line is not fun. Should i start porting from Cocoa to > > win32 or wait? > > Do you have python bindings? I tend to do all experiments in python > > and will start to make python interface. > > > > regards, > > Niki Spahiev > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide > > Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real > > users. > > Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. > > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click > > _______________________________________________ > > Adobe-source-devel mailing list > > Ado...@li... > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/adobe-source-devel > > ------------------------------------------------------- > SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide > Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. > Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click > _______________________________________________ > Adobe-source-devel mailing list > Ado...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/adobe-source-devel > |
From: Sean P. <sp...@ad...> - 2005-03-10 23:50:46
|
Hi Niki, Starting to use our stuff is always good - We actually aren't doing Cocoa at the moment (it's Carbon, although there is some stuff being done with A&E internally in Cocoa). I would say there are two places where you could jump in - We don't have Python bindings and I think they would be an interesting thing to have (and probably pretty simple to do - if you look at the command-line tutorial it is surprisingly simple to hook up). If you wanted to jump in on the Win32 side - I'd start with working on how to get good geometry out of controls (coordinate with Foster on that). I'd also love to have someone doing bindings to XAML. Sean On Mar 9, 2005, at 12:54 AM, Niki Spahiev wrote: >> A Win32 backend is definitely on our to do list, however we cannot >> give >> it as much time as we would like. There is no reasonable estimate as >> to >> when it will be ready for public release. In the meantime you can >> still >> see what Adam has to offer in the Adam command-line tutorial that was >> recently posted to CVS. > > Ok but command-line is not fun. Should i start porting from Cocoa to > win32 or wait? > Do you have python bindings? I tend to do all experiments in python > and will start to make python interface. > > regards, > Niki Spahiev > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide > Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real > users. > Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click > _______________________________________________ > Adobe-source-devel mailing list > Ado...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/adobe-source-devel |
From: Niki S. <nik...@gm...> - 2005-03-09 08:54:24
|
> A Win32 backend is definitely on our to do list, however we cannot give > it as much time as we would like. There is no reasonable estimate as to > when it will be ready for public release. In the meantime you can still > see what Adam has to offer in the Adam command-line tutorial that was > recently posted to CVS. Ok but command-line is not fun. Should i start porting from Cocoa to win32 or wait? Do you have python bindings? I tend to do all experiments in python and will start to make python interface. regards, Niki Spahiev |
From: Foster T. B. <fbr...@ad...> - 2005-03-08 19:01:09
|
Niki, A Win32 backend is definitely on our to do list, however we cannot give it as much time as we would like. There is no reasonable estimate as to when it will be ready for public release. In the meantime you can still see what Adam has to offer in the Adam command-line tutorial that was recently posted to CVS. Blessings, Foster On Mar 8, 2005, at 02:09a, Niki Spahiev wrote: > Any plans for win32 and linux backends? > I have no access to mac :-( > > regards, > Niki Spahiev > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide > Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real > users. > Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click > _______________________________________________ > Adobe-source-devel mailing list > Ado...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/adobe-source-devel > > -- Foster T. Brereton <}}}>< Romans 3:21-26 A d o b e S o f t w a r e T e c h n o l o g y L a b "What 99 percent of programmers need to know is not how to build components but how to use them." -- Alexander Stepanov |
From: Niki S. <nik...@gm...> - 2005-03-08 10:10:00
|
Any plans for win32 and linux backends? I have no access to mac :-( regards, Niki Spahiev |