RE: [Bojangles-devel] dynamic widgets
Status: Alpha
Brought to you by:
nehresma
From: Jonathan R. <jo...@cs...> - 2002-08-25 14:52:20
|
Hey all, > Just a preliminary thought... > Shouldn't the page widget be auto-added in bojangles? Every application > will need one, and I don't think we can import xml into other xml (which > would be cool), all apps will need to be edited as a whole (so every app > will have a page widget that encompasses everything else. sounds like a good idea to me > And now thoughts ordered by the questions from Nathan: > > >From this line of thinking, why do we even need a max_per_document for > anything other than a page? > > I think the default size of a widget would be something that centrallix > could use as well. So adding that to the widget.xml would makes sense > (IMHO). The only widgets that have an implicit size that don't allow the designer to specify a size is the checkbox (I think). I think we _should_ add the size to widgets.xml for these. There will be some widgets that _dont_ have a size though, because they are non-visual. How to handle that is another problem :) > As far as other things that would be bojangles-specific, like border > status and such, I like the idea of a widget_definitions directory with > XML files defining this sort of thing. I would actually vote for one file with all the data in it -- it just seems cleaner to me. > I think the bgcolor is something that (again) centrallix could use as > well for lazy app designers that want to just create default-colored > widgets and don't want to mess with making things fancy (the same can be > said for imagebuttons). bgcolor is in widgets.xml because it's a property of objects. However, widgets.xml doesn't tell bojangles how to represent it. Now you could just write the code that maps bgColor to SetBackgroundColor() and background to SetBackgroundImage() (I don't know the real function calls, but you get the picture), or you could put that stuff in a definition file and do the mapping at run time. Just a thought. > In summation, I think we should put some default properties in the > widget.xml file as a prevenitive measure against someone hand-coding an > app file and forgetting a property or two. Yes, default values (the values that centrallix will assume if you don't fill anything else in), should go in widget.xml. > However, since html nativly > knows what to do with buttons, imagebuttons, checkboxes, and > textboxes/areas. I'm not sure what you meant by this... centrallix does not use HTML buttons, imagebuttons, checkboxes, textboxes, or textareas. > I think we should keep these definitions to ourselves > (actually I see this as the only thing we would need to keep separate > from centrallix). Do you mean the special things (like border status, mapping of attributes to function calls, etc.)? -- If so, then yes, I agree -- don't clutter the centrallix documentation with things for bojangles. Jonathan |