Very nice.
I guess there are still ways to arrange things a little different here
and there, but now the functionality is straightforward and there is
little room for confusion.
One minor note - let's change "Done" button in the "New
DbRelationship" dialog to "Continue". Otherwise I think this is
finished.
Andrus
On Nov 17, 2008, at 7:47 PM, Andrey Razumovsky wrote:
> I've committed the dialog. Please have a look, and let's get over
> with it
>
> 2008/11/14, Kevin Menard <nirvdru..mail.com>:
>>
>> Comments are in-line.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 4:38 AM, Andrus Adamchik <andru..bjectstyle.org
>> >
>> wrote:
>>> Cool. I very much like the direction. Here is a few notes on the
>>> implementation:
>>>
>>> 1. I think "revert" and "clear" are redundant. They don't revert
>>> previous
>>> "save", but simply go back in the browser. It is just as easy to
>>> use the
>>> browser to achieve that. So I suggest we remove those buttons.
>>
>>
>> Are you seeing something different than me? If I modify an existing
>> relationship, revert takes me back to that mapped relationship.
>> Clear
>> removes all selection.
>>
>>
>>> 2. "Save Path" should probably be called "Select", as we are not
>>> really
>>> saving anything until "Done" is clicked. Also since we only have 1
>>> button
>>> now, maybe to make things more compact and consistent with other
>>> similar
>>> interfaces, implement it as a toolbar on top of the browser (see
>>> Select
>>> Query Ordering tab for an example).
>>
>>
>> +1.
>>
>>
>>> 3. DbRelationships. There's a bit of a problem figuring context of
>>> the
>> new
>>> relationship. It correctly uses a target of the currently selected
>>> DbRelationship path as its source, however its location is
>>> disjoint from
>> the
>>> browser so it is not immediately clear. It also clutters the view
>>> a bit.
>> So
>>> maybe we can add an extra dialog started with a "new relationship"
>>> button
>>> icon on the browser toolbar (see #2 - we will have a toolbar), that
>> allows
>>> you to select target entity, cardinality (to-one, to-many) and
>>> continue
>> to
>>> the joins mapping?
>>
>>
>> +1. The UI is a bit overloaded at the moment. Another option may be
>> to implement the dialog as a frame with tab panes.
>>
>> I'm still not a super huge fan of the constant expansion, but I think
>> the improvements made are making it less of an issue.
>>
>> I'd also like to see a bit more culling. Right now 1-1 are culled.
>> We could also cull 1 - m, m - 1, since the 1 is the same in each
>> case.
>> I think that would cut down on confusion a bit more.
>>
>> --
>>
>> Kevin
>>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Tue Nov 18 2008 - 03:11:44 EST