substack question

[Doug Lerner]

On 1/22/04 5:57 PM, "Brian Yennie" <briany at qldlearning.com> wrote:

> If it _is_ order related, you could always unhitch the middle-level
> stack first, and then reconnect all three in reverse order?
> 
> i.e.
> 
> set the mainStack of stack B to empty
> set the mainStack of stack C to B
> set the mainStack of stack B to A
> 
> I'm not sure that will work, but a possible workaround?

I don't think so, in this case.

> 
> Of course I'm curious, what is the advantage of having 3 levels of
> stacks?

Well, the mainstack is the mainstack. From the main stack I can call various
application windows, like "chat". Chat then would be a substack of the main
stack and can use things in the main stack hierarchy.

Similarly, Chat has a sub-application, a white board attached to that chat.
So I want it to be part of that chat hierarchy and be able to use the
handlers available to chat and also handlers available at the main stack
level.

It seems that 3 levels of stack is natural for a case like this, isn't it?

doug