realbasic-nug
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Binding Object Properties

To: REALbasic NUG <realbasic-nug at lists dot realsoftware dot com>
Subject: Re: Binding Object Properties
From: Antoine Raymond-Beaubien <antoine at beaubien dot qc dot ca>
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 20:24:57 -0400
Delivered-to: realbasic-nug at lists dot realsoftware dot com
References: <C1DCCA12-E1FC-11D8-BB42-000A95A5E76E at freaksw dot com> <a0611041bbd2fde0d77b6 at [213 dot 224 dot 115 dot 185]> <ED8750B5-E255-11D8-BB42-000A95A5E76E at freaksw dot com> <a06110429bd30547482c4 at [213 dot 224 dot 115 dot 185]> <p06110418bd305b360eb9 at [192 dot 168 dot 129 dot 30]> <1B2944CF-E267-11D8-BB42-000A95A5E76E at freaksw dot com> <4BD02559-E270-11D8-9E11-000A957CB4CC at desuetude dot com> <AA735C58-E272-11D8-BB42-000A95A5E76E at freaksw dot com>
On Jul 30, 2004, at 2:34 PM, Charles Yeomans wrote:

Not necessarily. I just wanted a way to link objects together at design time. Something like Cocoa's outlets. I figured binding and visible object properties were a good way to go about this.

The problem is that, in general, objects don't exist at design time. Windows and their controls are an exception.

Which is what I want to use it for. There's no problem there.

Or like the popup menu for picture included in the project file, cursors, database (in the datacontrol object), fields and datasource on some Controls. But, in RB6, if RS is to code that with its own compiler, then there *should* be no reason we can't do it, right...?

If I'm wrong, please RS guys, stop me before I build to much expectations...

* *

For the lines, probably everyone agrees that after a while, they become annoying. But if it came with a check menu item, we could activate it and desactivate it at will, then they would be useful, when needed.

The ability to control the position both end point of the binding line would be the «cherry on top of the sunday»... That way, we could prevent overlap of lines or hiding place of the window we're we get to edit often.

* *

At 14:50 -0700 30/07/04, Seth Willits wrote:
There would be a bindings section in the properties palette. (...) [You could] look at the bindings section in the properties palette to see them.

That, I agree with you Seth, would be very convenient.

* *

And also, the ability to put more than one bind between the two same objects would allow lots of little functionality to be written, and their power could be merge together. Otherwise, we are forced to do few classes or to share functions between many classes not necessarly harder, but it needs more housekeeping.

* *

Antoine
--
----------------------------------------------------------
         Antoine Raymond-Beaubien
----------------------------------------------------------
      « L'homme vulgaire accuse les autres,
        Le sage n'accuse que lui-même... »
----------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode:
<http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/>

Search the archives of this list here:
<http://www.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>