On May 23, 2008, at 1:51 AM, Andrey Razumovsky wrote:
> Well, 'the second' patch, which was originally the first was my
> first one
> and it is really bad-maken. Sorry for that, and it must be deleted.
You're right. Despite trying to make sure I grabbed the correct
patch, I seemed to have grabbed the wrong one anyway.
> Not exactly. You may see that 'byte' is quite far away from
> 'byte[]'. So if
> i want to select 'byte[]', and i type 'byte', 'byte[]' cannot be seen
> anywhere around. The problem is that auto-completion is now
> implemented as
> automatical search in combobox for a matching item and selecting it.
> Probably better solution would be to include in drop-down list only
> matching
> items - then 'byte' and 'byte[]' would be near each other no matter
> how
> close they were in original combo.
I can't fire up the modeler right now, but what you're saying makes
sense. I do think we want to narrow down the choices if we can,
rather than doing a reindex in the list. This also would address that
issue of ensuring only proper input. Just show an empty list if there
is no match.
> I also found the combo box editor deletion logic a bit odd. It didn't
>> actually delete what I typed, but rather changed the highlighted
>> area. It
>> was quite confusing. Any chance we can make the backspace key
>> actually
>> delete the selected text?
>
>
> Of course we can. The reason here is that that combobox doesn't allow
> anything that its predefined items. So selected item is always one of
> model's choices. Alternatively, we could set the item here only on
> 'enter'
> and cancel on focus lost (or set also on focus lost).
Yeah, I got how it worked after the confusion. But, when revising a
search, it's odd to be typing in an overwrite mode.
>
> Finally, CayenneWidgetFactory uses magic numbers for the maximum row
>> count. Please use a static field for such values.
>
>
> Understood. I'll do that in the next patch.
Great. Don't bother for things like window sizes. But others that
seem like configuration items we should. Take a look at the existing
code for inspiration. E.g., the part about determining how many
projects to show in the recent projects section.
>
>
> So how must a new patch be made? It should contain full auto-
> completion code
> or be 'a patch to previous patch'? And please let me know whether
> you agree
> or not with suggestions above.
Either approach would work for me. If you could do a full one, that
would be preferred since I haven't committed anything yet. Otherwise,
I'll just do it in two phases. Please note that I can't commit
anything until we get clarification on the licensing issue.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Fri May 23 2008 - 11:53:04 EDT