Dave, can you make your substack a mainstack? That way, you can revert just it if you want to...
Just my 2 cents, Ken Ray Sons of Thunder Software Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web Site: http://www.sonsothunder.com/ > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > David Burgun > Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2004 9:02 AM > To: How to use Revolution; Brian Yennie > Subject: Revert Woes - Spoke too soon > > > Hi All, > > I spoke too soon. I tested the revert command in a test project, > which had one main stack and one sub stack (the modal), in my real > app, I have: > > MainStack (Dummy, the window is hidden). > Sub-Stack Top Level Windows - Modeless, usually called up from Menu > or Tool Palette. > Sub-Stack Utilitity Level Modal Dialogs, called from button handlers > in Top Level Sub-Stacks. > > If I issue a "revert" from the Utility level, it reverts back to the > main stack, e.g. it reverts the Top Level Window too! > > So, is there no way to just have the revert on the current stack, not > the whole of the sub-stacks? > > Thanks a lot > Dave > > > !!!!!!!!!!THANK YOU SO MUCH!!!!!!!!!! > > I just don't know how I missed this command! I was actually trying to > see how the IDE did it when you use the "Close and Remove from > Memory" command - your email came thru just at the right time! > > I just knew there was a "RunRev" oriented way of doing this! Now I > have this in place, I can exploit the real Power Behind RunRev, I get > more or less for free the ability to treat my data, GUI controls and > code as one "unit". To a C/C++ programmer this is REAL POWER! Don't > get me wrong you can do this in C/C++ BUT the amount of overhead in > code and learning curve is huge! With RR it's already there! For > Free! And it's Cross-Platform!!!!! > > The "revert" command is the piece of the puzzle I was missing. In > fact I should probably NOT do the > > "save this stack" operation on the OK button? Since it will be saved > when the main stack is saved, correct? The problem was I think, is > that I was using positive logic, e.g. something gets saved if and > only if you specifically save it (which is a "C" way of thinking) but > actually the way that RunRev works is using (in my terms only, not a > critisism, but rather a (good) feature), negative logic, e.g. it will > be saved anyway, it's up to you to specially STOP it being saved! > e.g. I was using the lack of a save command in the cancel handler to > stop the data being updated, but of course it already had been > updated and I needed to restore it! on cancel! Not, not save it! > > On question though, if I place the revert command in a function that > is located inside the main stack, will the revert command work on the > main stack or the sub stack? I am going to try it anyway, but I'd > like to know what is *supposed* to happen. > > Thanks again! > > All the Best > Dave > > >Diving into this one late, but I think the "revert" command is what > >you are looking for. > > > >HTH, > >Brian > > > >>I'll look at the stuff you suggested, but it seems like an awful > >>lot of work compared to just reloading the sub-stack from disk if > >>necessary. A simple command like "purgeStack" would surely do the > >>trick? > > > >_______________________________________________ > >use-revolution mailing list > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution > > _______________________________________________ > use-revolution mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution > _______________________________________________ > use-revolution mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution > _______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution