Is this a bug?

[Chipp Walters]

And Dave has demonstrated EXACTLY my problem with this. The simple fact is,
I am creating grouped widgets, which I have differently named components
within, which I would like to be able to address.

Mark, your example also demonstrates the power of same named instances of
object. I guess it all boils down to each of us trying our best to create
reusable grouped components, each with the same codebase. A most difficult
task.

For instance, take altFldHeader which creates column headers for fields.
( go URL "http://www.gadgetplugins.com/altplugins/altFldHeader.rev" )

While it's been stable now for years, modifying old altFldHeaders still is a
problem as each instance has all of the code embedded in the group. The same
is true for many of my so called 'objects.' A benefit of this approach is
it's easy to do exception programming and track code as well with everything
being neatly packaged in a group. A big drawback is when you want to modify
the codebase, you have to replace each group, especially if you end up
adding a new control.

Separating the 'object' into a GUI library group and a background library
has it's own set of problems as well. You need to carefully track what
libraries are still being used. For instanec, they have to be inited from a
startup handler, so now you have at the minimum 3 different places for
custom object 'pieces': the library stack script, the GUI control group, and
a piece of init code in startup. You also need to be very careful using 'the
target' and if you have other system handlers, you'll need to make sure they
don't interfere, as they're called ALL THE TIME, instead of only when
needed. I'm not crazy about this approach, unless you're coding something
like libURL.

(Note: this could be simplified a bit by inserting the script of the object
into back, but the severe limitation on numbers of these makes it a poor
idea. All you need is 10 altFldHeaders and you've used up all your allowed
control inserts).

Perhaps a dynamic pseudo-instancer scripted from an installer might be an
interesting way to go. I don't know, I guess waiting until we get real
objects is the best way to go.

-Chipp

On 1/20/07, Dave Cragg <dave.cragg at lacscentre.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
> I assume any restriction on duplicate names would only apply at the
> same level within an object. Otherwise we'd have trouble with re-
> usable widgets made of grouped objects. For example, two "table
> widgets" on the same card should be named differently, but presumably
> not their component fields/buttons/sub-groups/etc. I.e. both tables
> can have buttons named "header".
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> use-revolution mailing list
> use-revolution at lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
>
>