Re: [Tile-dev] Tktable-tile-dev Digest, Vol 6, Issue 10

[Tim B. <tre...@ho...>]

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