I had this problem a few month too, but i found a solution:
http://qooxdoo.678.n2.nabble.com/Scroll-and-100-height-td7197903.html#a7210478
--
View this message in context:
http://qooxdoo.678.n2.nabble.com/How-to-set-Scroll-container-width-and-height-to-100-tp7454522p7488030.html
Sent from the qo
hi,
i added one line in CodeGenerator.py:
def generateLibInfoCode(self, libs, format, forceResourceUri=None,
forceScriptUri=None):
qxlibs = {}
for lib in libs:
-->if lib.namespace in qxlibs: continue
this one fixed it. but i don't know if this is the correct s
Hi Thomas,
Thanks for your comment.
thron7-2 wrote
>
> I could see developers using the OO interface, and be wanting the ability
> to use a qx.bom layer. So why should the be forced to break out of the OO
> paradigm and use (q) on that level?!
>
Said like that, I agree a lot with you... But a
> * The current wip implementation has a drawback: I have a feeling it's not
> "all in one piece" according to the programmer point of view. There isn't
> clear abstraction levels' hierarchy anymore: you have to choose either (q
> ~
> qx.Collection + qx.module.*) or (the other parts of the framewor
Hi Tristan,
Thanks for your reply. So here are my answers and views (please don't
consider it as critics... Also perhaps nobody else see the same problems
with it!):
* The current wip implementation has a drawback: I have a feeling it's not
"all in one piece" according to the programmer point of
