David Bovill wrote: > On 28/05/07, Richard Gaskin <ambassador at fourthworld.com> wrote: >> If you're referring to sub-components within a group which is acting >> as a custom control, do you really want users to be able to rename >> those? If there's a need, would it make more sense to do so as a >> property setting of the containing group, where it could be managed? > > An example for me would my my "tree view", or your "table view" - > a user may place a couple of these on a card and then want to script > them easily. > > Yes, they can refer to "the tree_Field of group 1". But this is > forcing the user to use a new form of syntax which they may not be > used to - so I'd like them to be able to rename the field to whatever > they like - now the field is part of a group with a title with drop > down menus and context menu for the lines... - that group is called > the "tree view".
A matter of preference I suppose. Built-in compound objects like scrolling fields don't let you name the scrollbar control, but instead have you set a property of the field which in turn affects its attached scrollbar.
But if you find it easier to let the user address subcomponents directly, I see no harm in it.
For myself, when I make a compound custom control I treat it as a black box as much as possible, providing an API for its use and leaving what goes on under the hood up to the object.
-- Richard Gaskin Lead Programmer, ResearchWare Inc. __________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
