Revert Woes - Spoke too soon

[Ken Ray]

David,

Did you log the bug in Bugzilla? If not, you should, as it definitely *is* a
bug that values are saved when the destroystack/destroywindow of a substack
is true.

Ken Ray
Sons of Thunder Software
Email: kray at sonsothunder.com
Web Site: http://www.sonsothunder.com/


> -----Original Message-----
> From: use-revolution-bounces at lists.runrev.com 
> [mailto:use-revolution-bounces at lists.runrev.com] On Behalf Of 
> David Burgun
> Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2004 7:55 AM
> To: How to use Revolution
> Subject: RE: Revert Woes - Spoke too soon
> 
> 
> Yes, done that now. The thing is that you don't need the "revert" 
> command if you do it this way!
> 
> Thanks
> Dave
> 
> 
> 
> >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: kray at sonsothunder.com
> >Web Site: http://www.sonsothunder.com/
> >
> >
> >>  -----Original Message-----
> >>  From: use-revolution-bounces at lists.runrev.com
> >>  [mailto:use-revolution-bounces at lists.runrev.com] 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
> >>  >use-revolution at lists.runrev.com
> >>  >http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
> >>
> >>  _______________________________________________
> >>  use-revolution mailing list
> >>  use-revolution at lists.runrev.com  
> >> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
> >>  _______________________________________________
> >>  use-revolution mailing list
> >>  use-revolution at lists.runrev.com  
> >> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
> >  >
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >use-revolution mailing list
> >use-revolution at lists.runrev.com 
> >http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
> 
> _______________________________________________
> use-revolution mailing list
> use-revolution at lists.runrev.com 
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
>