On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 11:50:03 +0200
Marc Weustink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mattias Gaertner wrote:
> > On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 10:45:25 +0200
> > Marc Weustink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> [...]
> >>>>>> Modified needs to be modified :)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> procedure Modified;
> >>>>>> begin
> >>>>>> SendBeginModificationToAllBeginEndObeservers;
> >>>>>> SendModifiedNotificationToAllModifiedObeservers;
> >>>>>> SendEndModificationToAllBeginEndObeservers;
> >>>>>> end;
> >>>>> But then Begin/End is useless, isn't it? The modification took
> >>>>> place before 'Begin'. For example:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> NewToolButton.Parent:=CurToolBar;
> >>>>> Modified;
> >>>> Indeed, I was more thinking of controls reacting on the
> >>>> ModifiedNotification which would trigger more modifications.
> >>>>
> >>>> In your example, an editor sets the Parent and calls Modified.
> >>>> Why would setting the parent trigger other code which will call
> >>>> Modified ? Afterall, Modified is a Designer/Editor method, and
> >>>> should/can not be called from the component itself. So I see no
> >>>> chain of modified there.
> >>> There are some components, that call Modified. For example
> >>> changing the PageIndex of a TNoteBook. But this is very rare and
> >>> can be changed. Let's ignore these things.
> >>>
> >>> More important is that we don't have a working Begin/End
> >>> enclosement. So, we can only react, but not prepare. Or in other
> >>> words: Only a OnModified event, but no OnChanging.
> >>>
> >>> At the moment the solution is to swallow the bitter pill and
> >>> implement a dynamic property propagation system. The more
> >>> information the changer (e.g. OI) provides, the less the system
> >>> will copy. The OI can call BeginUpdate/ChangeProperty/EndUpdate,
> >>> while others can call Modified and the whole forms are
> >>> scanned/copied.
> >> Whats wrong with adapting modified ?
> >>
> >> That is the difference of having one OnModified, or having
> >> observers which subscribe themselves to begen/end notifications
> >
> > Begin/EndUpdate and notifications are a good idea and needed.
> >
> > I'm just unhappy, that there is no more elegant solution for copying
> > the data to the descendants.
>
> It may be the case, but, what would a elegant way help if it isn't
> used that often.
> I mean, you need this to be able to efficiently update descendant
> forms. How often will one edit ancestor while descendants are open.
> So question is, is the efford needed
Don't forget: The default is to open the form when opening the unit. I
disabled this 'feature' and I guess you too.
And I know many users, who keep many units open.
That's why I think, when people edit an ancestor at least one
descendant will be open.
Mattias
_________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe" as the Subject
archives at http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailarchives
