On 4/10/2010 11:04 AM, Hilaire Fernandes wrote:
> I remember you were using XUL for UI definition in Sophie, why this choice? In combination with CSS it allowed us to change the UI without changing the code (at least to some extend). Basically skinning through external files, as you would do with a properly done web site. Michael _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project |
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.
|
On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 11:33 AM, Hilaire Fernandes
<[hidden email]> wrote: > Michael Rueger a écrit : >> >> On 4/10/2010 11:04 AM, Hilaire Fernandes wrote: > >> In combination with CSS it allowed us to change the UI without changing >> the code (at least to some extend). Basically skinning through external >> files, as you would do with a properly done web site. > > And how do you fell about it now? Will you do the same choice if starting > from now? Basically yes, although some of the internal aspects could be improved. Largely has to do with the way we sort of had to retrofit it onto Tweak. Michael _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project |
In reply to this post by David Harvey
Henrik, all, thanks for your help with this. I've been away from the codeface for a while and haven't yet tried all of the fixes. I did get things rendering well by caching the form canvas and redrawing that when required (just as the HandMorph does - as I said, the rendering while dragging is always OK). Relevant code below:
>>>> drawOn: aCanvas super drawOn: aCanvas. cachedCanvas isNil ifTrue: [
cachedCanvas := (aCanvas allocateForm: self bounds extent) getCanvas. self drawContentsOn: cachedCanvas.
]. aCanvas translucentImage: cachedCanvas form at: self bounds origin.
<<<< Best David
------------------ David Harvey www.teamsandtechnology.com www.cateams.com @david_harvey On 7 April 2010 12:45, David Harvey <[hidden email]> wrote: Hi list, _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project |
In reply to this post by Lukas Renggli
Sorry for responding so late. but...
On 09.04.2010 11:14, Lukas Renggli wrote: > Pay attention there is a #haltOnce in the code. Also there is > something wrong with the line endings in the change-set. > :( Didn't have time to review it before submission at the time, so some debug code was left in. > However it also breaks some window refreshing, see attached screenshot. > > Lukas Yes, for some reason, 1.0 does not contain TransformMorph >> areasRemainingTofFill: aRectangle ^Array with: aRectangle Which is needed for a proper refresh. As you noticed, at least it's quite visible when not present, so one is forced to determine what the proper return value should be, Basically, areasRemaining...: should denote the non-opaque areas of the morph. This is mostly used in the drawing algorithm, to determine coverage of a morph, and thus which areas remain to be drawn below it. In the case of TransformMorph, the calculation for returning a decent estimate is probably more work than just telling it to draw everything below (ie. return the rectangle as the area that remains to be drawn), so that's what we do. If you have a better default, please suggest it! :D Cheers, Henry _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project |
we should release 1.1 much faster :)
like that people will be able to get all the fixes.... Stef On Apr 18, 2010, at 2:42 AM, Henrik Sperre Johansen wrote: > Sorry for responding so late. but... > On 09.04.2010 11:14, Lukas Renggli wrote: >> Pay attention there is a #haltOnce in the code. Also there is >> something wrong with the line endings in the change-set. >> > :( Didn't have time to review it before submission at the time, so some debug code was left in. >> However it also breaks some window refreshing, see attached screenshot. >> >> Lukas > > Yes, for some reason, 1.0 does not contain > TransformMorph >> areasRemainingTofFill: aRectangle > > ^Array with: aRectangle > > Which is needed for a proper refresh. > As you noticed, at least it's quite visible when not present, so one is forced to determine what the proper return value should be, > Basically, areasRemaining...: should denote the non-opaque areas of the morph. > This is mostly used in the drawing algorithm, to determine coverage of a morph, and thus which areas remain to be drawn below it. > In the case of TransformMorph, the calculation for returning a decent estimate is probably more work than just telling it to draw everything below (ie. return the rectangle as the area that remains to be drawn), so that's what we do. If you have a better default, please suggest it! :D > > Cheers, > Henry > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project |
On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 8:21 AM, Stéphane Ducasse
<[hidden email]> wrote: > we should release 1.1 much faster :) > like that people will be able to get all the fixes.... yes ;) for tagging fixes for 1.0 maintenance, should we use a milestone 1.0.1 in the tracker? - is this code candidate for 1.0.1? cheers, Mike _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project |
On Apr 18, 2010, at 10:32 AM, Michael Roberts wrote: > On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 8:21 AM, Stéphane Ducasse > <[hidden email]> wrote: >> we should release 1.1 much faster :) >> like that people will be able to get all the fixes.... > > yes ;) > > for tagging fixes for 1.0 maintenance, should we use a milestone 1.0.1 > in the tracker? - is this code candidate for 1.0.1? 1.0.1 would be better because we really want to not spend too much time on this one since far too many fixes were made in 1.1 Stef > > cheers, > Mike > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project |
Yes, please tag important fixes with milestone 1.0.1. I added this milestone as a predefined label (so it will show up in the autocompleter).
Adrian On Apr 18, 2010, at 13:12 , Stéphane Ducasse wrote: > > On Apr 18, 2010, at 10:32 AM, Michael Roberts wrote: > >> On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 8:21 AM, Stéphane Ducasse >> <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> we should release 1.1 much faster :) >>> like that people will be able to get all the fixes.... >> >> yes ;) >> >> for tagging fixes for 1.0 maintenance, should we use a milestone 1.0.1 >> in the tracker? - is this code candidate for 1.0.1? > > 1.0.1 would be better because we really want to not spend too much time on this one > since far too many fixes were made in 1.1 > > Stef > >> >> cheers, >> Mike >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Pharo-project mailing list >> [hidden email] >> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project > > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project |
Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |