|
From: Tim B. <tre...@ho...> - 2006-11-21 23:18:02
|
Jeff Hobbs wrote: > > Brett Schwarz wrote: >> I like the idea of waiting for 8.6 to get a good solution for >> a tree widget in the core (whether that's an enhanced >> treeview or a wrangled up tktreectrl). Even though I would >> have loved to see it part of 8.5, I'd rather wait for a good >> and solid solution. > > That would address the situation *if* we felt that treectrl served as a > useful > base for "more generic" treeview widget. That is what I am not certain > of. > > I did verify that Tim's latest changes greatly reduce memory (ActivePerl > PPM > steady state reduced from ~66MB to ~43MB, with just an upgrade to treectrl > 2.2). However, if I only needed what a "simpler" treeview would provide, > and > it provided it with a memory size of ~20MB for the same app ... does that > not > justify a simpler, dedicated widget? > > Therein lies the real question - if we strongly feel that a simple > dedicated > and mega configurable tree widgets (2 separate) are both valuable, let's > get > treeview in 8.5, and treectrl in 8.6. Is it only the [style] and [element] commands that blows treectrl out of the "simple" space into "mega-configurable"? The high memory requirements are mostly a result of styles and elements. Whenever people comment that treectrl is difficult to use I start brainstorming alternate APIs. It always comes down to a question of how much control over the appearance of items is desired. > (BTW Tim - I had to modify the configure.ac to kick treectrl to 2.2 - any > reason not to commit that?) Done. -- Tim Baker |