On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 2:33 AM, Ville M. Vainio <vivai...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Actually, I think we should nail the UI portion first. The rest is > easy, it's just some convention we agree on. I agree. > I think I'd like to allow > the plugins to manage the whole ui part themselves by providing a > custom QWidget, instead of providing a few select "hardcoded" editable > field types. E.g. some plugin may want to draw in the plugin area. > I'm a bit confused by the plural "plugins". I assume a single edit_attributes plugin is what we are discussing. But perhaps special-purpose plugins, with their own needs for gui interaction, would want more sophisticated interfaces. > > Perhaps what we are looking for here is just a new (optional) > QTabWidget or QStackedWidget under the body. We have the log tabwidget > already, but IMO that's a bit "monopolized" by the log pane. > Why not use the log pane? > > The plugins would manage their own QWidget and populate it any way > they wish. Leo would provide a mechanism to hide/show the whole > "plugin area", and possibly remove the unnecessary tabs from there. > > If a plugin needs a simple "field editor" type UI, we can provide one > by a library that follows one of the proposed conventions (_edit uA, > ...) > These seem like reasonable approaches. Edward --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group. To post to this group, send email to leo-editor@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
