Re: [Yact-dev] Screenshots

[Marius S. <ma...@fi...>]

> > I'm not likely to bother downloading a program that looks like shit
> > (even though it may be technically good).
>
>That's true, and since I've got no sense of aestetics myself, I'm glad
>I've got you on the team. :)

Not that you've seen anything I've made, have you? :-)  But I'm glad you 
trust me :-)

> > When it comes to the GUI design, how should we make the editors?
>
>Good point, and the jury is still out on that one.  The problem with the
>treeview thing that Rose (and Object Domain) uses is that it is hard to
>get a good overview of just the diagrams in the model, as all types of
>entities are intermixed.  On the other hand, putting the diagrams on
>tabs at the top (as Object Domain does), creates problems when the tab
>list becomes full.

Actually, I was thinking about the entity editors, like the class editor.

However, I agree with you.  If you have a lot of classes, packages etc, the 
diagrams drown in all the other stuff.  I often find myself browsing the 
tree in Rose searching for diagrams.

>Suggestion: Something like the MS Visual Studio tools, with several
>treeviews on different tab pages, each with a different focus.  One
>might show the normal UML view, one just shows diagrams, and another one
>shows something else.  If implemented with visitors (even if I have no
>idea HOW, right now), it ought to be rather easy.

Yes, that is the obvious solution.  It doesn't scale as well as a combobox 
above the tree, but I think tabs is better GUI design.  The scalability 
does not have to be a real problem, though.  How many "types" of trees do 
we need?

  - Views / Diagrams
  - Packages / Classes
  - All-in-one?

Either way, it is a trivial issue whether to use combobox or tabbar.

I guess this is a typical example of a Model-View case, right?  There's one 
model repository containing the structure, and then several views of this 
model.

Anyway... hm... I never got around to modify Qb so that it would compile, 
and thus I could not try Yact either.  Since you know the Qb code, it is 
probably a lot easier for you to make it more compatible (you said ODBC and 
SQL wasn't necessary, right?), so, do you think you can do that?  I'd 
rather not spend time on getting it to compile... Heck, I almost feel 
ashamed whenever I take the time write emails like this instead of working :-(


  - Marius