Flatter than I hoped for

[Frank Leahy]

Doug,

Yes, it would be nice to do what you want.  You might be able to do it 
as follows (assuming you have some source control in place for the main 
stack):

1. Main stack has all your really common handlers.  This stack gets put 
into source control so that any developer can get the latest version at 
any time.  (And anyone who breaks it has to do the nightly build for a 
week :-)

2. Each developer works on his "stack set", e.g. chat stack + 
whiteboard stack.

3. When a stack in a "stack set" is suspended, it is responsible for 
calling "stop using" on the stacks in its stack set.

4.  Similarly, when a stack in a "stack set" is resumed, it is 
responsible for calling "start using" on the stacks in its stack set.

This assumes of course that stack sets that are open but not in front 
won't need their handlers while they're in the background.

Another option would be to have some handler naming conventions for 
each stack set so you could be sure there were never any naming clashes.

-- Frank 




On Friday, January 23, 2004, at 09:58  AM, 
use-revolution-request at lists.runrev.com wrote:

> 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
>