Re: properties dialog and grouped objects

[Hans Breuer <hans breuer org>]

On 01.08.2007 10:56, Sameer Sahasrabuddhe wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Although the current work on setting properties for grouped objects is
> coming along fine, I bumped into two problems:
>
> 1) For some objects (UML class, for example), the properties dialog is
> way too big. 
Yes, someone with a small enough display should probably rearrange the
controls the make the dialog grow in width but shrink in height.

> I found the following bug in bugzilla ...
>
> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=333751
>
> But this is not it. This bug talks about a dialog box that retains it
> size when opened again for a different object. 
Probably some bug in Gtk, but apparently I'm not able to reproduce it any
longer with gtk+ 2.10.14

> My problem is that the
> dialog box itself is so big in the first place, that I can't reach the
> OK and other buttons. The dialog is also not resizable.
It should be resizable, but only if you want to have it bigger;) The
minimal size is calculated by all te contained widgets though.

> 2) This problem quickly gets compounded when setting properties of
> grouped objects. Since we currently use a union, 
IMHO it would be nice to have that at least selectable - my prototype
group_props.py only offered the intersection an IMO works quite nicely.

> the list can grow
> quickly. Try grouping a simple Line with a UML Class. The resulting
> list of properties of list is way too long, even longer than the
> properties dialog for only the UML Class, since the latter uses tabs.
My halfbaked Dia/Maemo port had a scollable area between the property table
and the vbox. Maybe I can port this to the trunk. At the moment I don't see
another good solution for too much properties.

> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=60331
Just looked at the lst patch. It is changing every objects 'vtable' and
thus breaking binary compatibility. If necessary at all it should be added
at the end of the vtable (see objects.h struct _ObjectOps) having only 4
unused left. Also one would need to implement a default handling for case
where the objects function pointer is NULL.

> Should (1) be submitted as a new bug? I couldn't find a relevant one
> in bugzilla.
at least for the special case (UML Class) there is
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=445698
but maybe there should be one for the general case.

> And (2) implies a need for a lot of reorganisation in properties.
Could you explain this a bit more. How could reorganizing properties help
to solve serious size restrictions?

> There was some suggestion on the group properties bug regarding this.
> I think that will have to be thought out and implemented if group
> properties are to be of use other than just for simple groups of
> simple objects.
Thanks for your patience ;)

        Hans

-------- Hans "at" Breuer "dot" Org -----------
Tell me what you need, and I'll tell you how to
get along without it.                -- Dilbert