RE: The verboseness of Visibility
Maybe, but does hidden/collapsed have any value when visible? In which case having them as a separate state seems incorrect to me. I'm happy to have it as is, but as I said, I'm used to it. -Original Message- From: ozsilverlight-boun...@ozsilverlight.com [mailto:ozsilverlight-boun...@ozsilverlight.com] On Behalf Of Tony Wright Sent: Tuesday, 16 March 2010 7:07 AM To: 'ozSilverlight' Subject: RE: The verboseness of Visibility Well my thoughts are that Collapsed and Hidden are just states of not visible. So I'm still out on whether this is just annoying. T. -Original Message- From: ozsilverlight-boun...@ozsilverlight.com [mailto:ozsilverlight-boun...@ozsilverlight.com] On Behalf Of Steven Nagy Sent: Sunday, 14 March 2010 9:25 PM To: 'ozSilverlight' Subject: RE: The verboseness of Visibility I also find myself using MVVM a lot and I tend to just expose a property to bind to that is of type Visibility, wrapping up the underlying model that needs a bool. So really, I don't often find myself needing the BoolToVisibilityConverter anyway (and also I think there is a default converter for it now in the WPF framework bits, maybe there is one in SL too?) -Original Message- From: ozsilverlight-boun...@ozsilverlight.com [mailto:ozsilverlight-boun...@ozsilverlight.com] On Behalf Of ton...@tpg.com.au Sent: Friday, 12 March 2010 9:20 AM To: ozSilverlight Subject: RE: The verboseness of Visibility Cool, at least now I know the reason! Thanks. On Fri, Mar 12th, 2010 at 10:10 AM, ste...@snagy.name wrote: > No idea about this in SL but in WPF we have the same. Visibility DOES > > have 3 states: Visible, Hidden, Collapsed. > > Hidden is much differen from collapsed - a hidden object will still > > take the same amount of real estate such that if you have items > stacked and you set the first one as hidden, the second item will be > > in the same position still. However if you collapse the first item, > > the second item will move up to assume its spot. So collapsing works > > much better for flow layouts. > > For people in WPF world, they're used to this tri-state and a > BoolToVisibilityConverter is a 2 second job. (you all have a master > > resource dictionary for all these common reusable elements right?). > > Perhaps the SL change is the first step towards supporting this > tri-state? > > Quoting Mark : > > > Yeah, I've thought about this too. I use a converter and so the > View Model > > can just use a bool, but it does seem like an unnecessary step. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: ozsilverlight-boun...@ozsilverlight.com > > [mailto:ozsilverlight-boun...@ozsilverlight.com] On Behalf Of > > ton...@tpg.com.au > > Sent: Friday, 12 March 2010 11:31 a.m. > > To: ozsilverlight@ozsilverlight.com > > Subject: The verboseness of Visibility > > > > Hi all, > > > > Does anyone else get annoyed at the extra hastle required to set > and bind > > the Visibility property? > > > > I mean, how easy was it in the "old days" to simply set > IsVisible=true or > > IsVisible=false? You didn't > > need a Visibility to Bool converter, which is extra unneccessary > processing, > > and an extra point of > > failure if it's forgotten, and more text to make mistakes. > > > > I mean, come on, there are only two states. There will never be a > third > > state. Instead of writing in > > my code: > > > > TermTextBox.IsVisible = MyBoolVar; > > > > I have to write something like: > > TermTextBox.Visibility = (MyBoolVar ? Visibility.Visible : > > Visibility.Collapsed); > > > > Does it somehow give it extra contextual meaning for all the extra > effort? > > No. > > > > Can there be a third state, somehow semi-visible. No - that would > be handled > > via an opacity or > > animation. > > > > There is only a single meaning! > > > > It's Friday, bring it on! > > > > Regards, > > Tony > > > > ___ > > ozsilverlight mailing list > > ozsilverlight@ozsilverlight.com > > http://prdlxvm0001.codify.net/mailman/listinfo/ozsilverlight > > > > ___ > ozsilverlight mailing list > ozsilverlight@ozsilverlight.com > http://prdlxvm0001.codify.net/mailman/listinfo/ozsilverlight > > > ___ ozsilverlight mailing list ozsilverlight@ozsilverlight.com http://prdlxvm0001.codify.net/mailman/listinfo/ozsilverlight ___ ozsilverlight mailing list ozsilverlight@ozsilverlight.com http://prdlxvm0001.codify.net/mailman/listinfo/ozsilverlight ___ ozsilverlight mailing list ozsilverlight@ozsilverlight.com http://prdlxvm0001.codify.net/mailman/listinfo/ozsilverlight ___ ozsilverlight mailing list ozsilverlight@ozsilverlight.com http://prdlxvm0001.codify.net/mailman/listinfo/ozsilverlight
Silverlight Spy Equivalent...
Hi all, At the Silverlight Code Camp, someone mentioned that a Silverlight Spy equivalent was available in the SDK. While I know that it is likely to be a less featured tool, I'm still wondering what it is. Does someone know what it is and how I can find it? Regards, Tony ___ ozsilverlight mailing list ozsilverlight@ozsilverlight.com http://prdlxvm0001.codify.net/mailman/listinfo/ozsilverlight
Re: Silverlight Spy Equivalent...
That might have been me - I was just referring to uispy.exe - http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms727247.aspx It'll give you a subset of the information you'd get from silverlight spy - enough to try to get something like white working for writing automation. Downloading it by itself is surprisingly annoying and difficult - it is buried in amongst other stuff in various SDKs despite being a completely self contained executable. Try google or you might be lucky and find someone who's installed one of the SDKs and can give you uispy.exe On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 4:14 PM, wrote: > Hi all, > > At the Silverlight Code Camp, someone mentioned that a Silverlight Spy > equivalent was available > in the SDK. While I know that it is likely to be a less featured tool, I'm > still wondering what it is. > Does someone know what it is and how I can find it? > > Regards, > Tony > > ___ > ozsilverlight mailing list > ozsilverlight@ozsilverlight.com > http://prdlxvm0001.codify.net/mailman/listinfo/ozsilverlight > ___ ozsilverlight mailing list ozsilverlight@ozsilverlight.com http://prdlxvm0001.codify.net/mailman/listinfo/ozsilverlight
Re: The verboseness of Visibility
Although coming from WPF I see the usefulness of it, I'm still with you -
it's annoying.
I'd be happy to settle for two bools:
bool IsVisible { get;set; } // Defaults to true
bool CollapseWhenHidden { get;set; } // Defaults to true
Just to make the binding easier.
I think it's fine to sacrifice some 'purity' for the sake of simplicity in
occasions like this.
Paul
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 7:06 AM, Tony Wright wrote:
> Well my thoughts are that Collapsed and Hidden are just states of not
> visible. So I'm still out on whether this is just annoying.
> T.
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: ozsilverlight-boun...@ozsilverlight.com
> [mailto:ozsilverlight-boun...@ozsilverlight.com] On Behalf Of Steven Nagy
> Sent: Sunday, 14 March 2010 9:25 PM
> To: 'ozSilverlight'
> Subject: RE: The verboseness of Visibility
>
> I also find myself using MVVM a lot and I tend to just expose a property to
> bind to that is of type Visibility, wrapping up the underlying model that
> needs a bool.
> So really, I don't often find myself needing the BoolToVisibilityConverter
> anyway (and also I think there is a default converter for it now in the WPF
> framework bits, maybe there is one in SL too?)
>
> -Original Message-
> From: ozsilverlight-boun...@ozsilverlight.com
> [mailto:ozsilverlight-boun...@ozsilverlight.com] On Behalf Of
> ton...@tpg.com.au
> Sent: Friday, 12 March 2010 9:20 AM
> To: ozSilverlight
> Subject: RE: The verboseness of Visibility
>
> Cool, at least now I know the reason!
>
> Thanks.
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 12th, 2010 at 10:10 AM, ste...@snagy.name wrote:
>
> > No idea about this in SL but in WPF we have the same. Visibility DOES
> >
> > have 3 states: Visible, Hidden, Collapsed.
> >
> > Hidden is much differen from collapsed - a hidden object will still
> >
> > take the same amount of real estate such that if you have items
> > stacked and you set the first one as hidden, the second item will be
> >
> > in the same position still. However if you collapse the first item,
> >
> > the second item will move up to assume its spot. So collapsing works
> >
> > much better for flow layouts.
> >
> > For people in WPF world, they're used to this tri-state and a
> > BoolToVisibilityConverter is a 2 second job. (you all have a master
> >
> > resource dictionary for all these common reusable elements right?).
> >
> > Perhaps the SL change is the first step towards supporting this
> > tri-state?
> >
> > Quoting Mark :
> >
> > > Yeah, I've thought about this too. I use a converter and so the
> > View Model
> > > can just use a bool, but it does seem like an unnecessary step.
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: ozsilverlight-boun...@ozsilverlight.com
> > > [mailto:ozsilverlight-boun...@ozsilverlight.com] On Behalf Of
> > > ton...@tpg.com.au
> > > Sent: Friday, 12 March 2010 11:31 a.m.
> > > To: ozsilverlight@ozsilverlight.com
> > > Subject: The verboseness of Visibility
> > >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > Does anyone else get annoyed at the extra hastle required to set
> > and bind
> > > the Visibility property?
> > >
> > > I mean, how easy was it in the "old days" to simply set
> > IsVisible=true or
> > > IsVisible=false? You didn't
> > > need a Visibility to Bool converter, which is extra unneccessary
> > processing,
> > > and an extra point of
> > > failure if it's forgotten, and more text to make mistakes.
> > >
> > > I mean, come on, there are only two states. There will never be a
> > third
> > > state. Instead of writing in
> > > my code:
> > >
> > > TermTextBox.IsVisible = MyBoolVar;
> > >
> > > I have to write something like:
> > > TermTextBox.Visibility = (MyBoolVar ? Visibility.Visible :
> > > Visibility.Collapsed);
> > >
> > > Does it somehow give it extra contextual meaning for all the extra
> > effort?
> > > No.
> > >
> > > Can there be a third state, somehow semi-visible. No - that would
> > be handled
> > > via an opacity or
> > > animation.
> > >
> > > There is only a single meaning!
> > >
> > > It's Friday, bring it on!
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Tony
> > >
> > > ___
> > > ozsilverlight mailing list
> > > ozsilverlight@ozsilverlight.com
> > > http://prdlxvm0001.codify.net/mailman/listinfo/ozsilverlight
> > >
> >
> > ___
> > ozsilverlight mailing list
> > ozsilverlight@ozsilverlight.com
> > http://prdlxvm0001.codify.net/mailman/listinfo/ozsilverlight
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ___
> ozsilverlight mailing list
> ozsilverlight@ozsilverlight.com
> http://prdlxvm0001.codify.net/mailman/listinfo/ozsilverlight
>
> ___
> ozsilverlight mailing list
> ozsilverlight@ozsilverlight.com
> http://prdlxvm0001.codify.net/mailman/listinfo/ozsilverlight
>
>
> ___
> ozsilverlight mailing list
> ozsilverlight@ozsilverlight.com
> http://prdlxvm0001.codify.net/mailman/listinf
