Flatter than I hoped for

[Doug Lerner]

On 1/23/04 2:47 PM, "Ken Ray" <kray at sonsothunder.com> wrote:

> Doug,
> 
>> This is "ok", but I was hoping to be able to do this more
>> modularly - keeping all of a particular stack's handlers
>> within a substack. But as soon as I needed a depth of more
>> than 2 (a substack of a substack) this became unfeasible.
> 
> AFAIK you can't have a substack of a substack, so I don't know what you
> mean...

Some people on this list were suggesting you could. But, as you say, you
can't.

> 
>> I think better support for a more flexible stack hierarchy
>> would be useful in future Rev enhancements. Especially for
>> groups of people working together on a single project, or for
>> creating plugin features to an existing app.
> 
> How do you think the hierarchy should be changed? Just curious...

For example.

A - Mainstack
    B - Feature called by pressing a button in the main stack
          C - A sub-feature of app 1 opened up by pressing a button in app 1
    D - Another feature called by pressing a button in the main stack

All the stacks need to be able to use the handlers in the main stack, A.
C needs to use the handlers in stack B and stack A because it is a substack
of stack B.

In the case of A->B->C there would be three windows opened up, C would
depend on what is going on in B.

It seems a natural thing to want to do, doesn't it?

doug