Home » Community » Coffee corner » Interesting....
Re: Interesting.... [message #2419 is a reply to message #2418] |
Wed, 12 April 2006 13:20   |
 |
mirek
Messages: 14255 Registered: November 2005
|
Ultimate Member |
|
|
Ah,
well, it is a little bit hard to explain, but....
U++ layouts are designed in a way that leads to "dialogs as structs". Means each layout naturally generates some C++ struct that contains widgets as members. This is one of dominant reasons why coding in U++ is so fast.
Now with dialogs stored in XML, this feature would be lost, because you would have to dynamically create dialogs by parsing XML and best you could hope for is to access widgets using some sort of textual IDs. U++ productivity gone.
While it is quite possible to implement this in U++, the question is why? If some real world app needs this, it will have most likely other very specific requirement, satisfying them would be most likely harder than "XML dialog" skeleton code, which really is quite primitive.
Just a side note - I have couple of applications that store sort of dialog layouts in Oracle. Then others that store dialog layouts in proprietary text format. Still I do not see any advantage to provide some fixed facilities for dynamic dialogs.
Mirek
|
|
|
 |
|
Interesting....
By: mirek on Tue, 21 March 2006 21:41
|
 |
|
Re: Interesting....
By: mirek on Tue, 21 March 2006 22:09
|
 |
|
Re: Interesting....
By: unodgs on Wed, 22 March 2006 08:45
|
 |
|
Re: Interesting....
By: mirek on Wed, 22 March 2006 10:09
|
 |
|
Re: Interesting....
By: hojtsy on Wed, 22 March 2006 13:36
|
 |
|
Re: Interesting....
By: mirek on Wed, 22 March 2006 13:51
|
 |
|
Re: Interesting....
By: mr_ped on Wed, 12 April 2006 12:44
|
 |
|
Re: Interesting....
By: mirek on Wed, 12 April 2006 13:20
|
 |
|
Re: Interesting....
By: tojocky on Tue, 27 October 2009 09:44
|
 |
|
Re: Interesting....
|
 |
|
Re: Interesting....
By: mdelfede on Wed, 28 October 2009 13:34
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Mon Apr 28 15:23:59 CEST 2025
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.03982 seconds
|