Re: non inplace components

[lacage email enst fr (Mathieu Lacage)]

>  > > 
>  > >      I don't think I agree with this part.  I think a GnomeEmbeddable
>  > >  can have multiple views, some of them in-place, some of them
>  > >  non-inplace.  What do you think?
>  > >  
>  > 
>  > Well, this strikes me.... To me, the REAL use of noninplace activation is as 
>  > folows:
>  > it is used only for ease of development: when pl begin to write their 
>  > components, they begin by developping noninplace components then they add 
>  > inplace ability, then saving/linking....
>  > The point is that non-inplace is not an end in itself but rather a step which 
>  > eases the development. You can test your component sooner.
> 
>     I can see how it would be useful to test your component without
> implementing the in-place code.  But I still that that non-in-place
> component views need to be well-supported.
> 
>  > Anyway, I jsu can't figure out what could be the use of a componnent which 
>  > would be both inplace and noninplace.
> 
>     I can see it being useful.  Imagine the following scenario: You
> embed an image in your word processor document.  And you want to edit
> it, but at a higher zoom level.  So you create a non-in-place view of
> the component at a higher zoom.  It opens in a separate window and
> edits in that window are reflected in the in-place subdocument.

Well, I feel this to be quite far fetched...
I don't know. Do you really believe that users would be able to use this ?
I don't think that users are dumb but if they are as good as me at understanding
the way a word processor works, then you don't have a chance to get them to use 
such a feature.
Perhaps this would be natural to users acustomized to such a system...

Mathieu