[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kfm-devel
Subject:    Re: draft+thoughts
From:       Simon Hausmann <tronical () gmx ! net>
Date:       1999-02-27 10:42:23
[Download RAW message or body]

On Fri, 26 Feb 1999, David Faure wrote:
[...]
>(your drawing, which looks fine in my xemacs :) )
>
> the "hosting" mainwindow
>/-------------------------------------------\
>|                                           |
>| /----------\   /------------------------\ |
>| | any part |   | yap (yet another part) | |
>| \----------/   \------------------------/ |
>|                                           |
>| /---------------------------\             |
>| | our konqueror mainview    |             |
>| |                           |             |
>| | /----------\ /----------\ |             |
>| | | htmlview | | treeview | |             |
>| | \----------/ \----------/ |             |
>| |                           |             |
>| \---------------------------/             |
>|                                           |
>\-------------------------------------------/
>
>Ah, that's what the MainView is. Ok, I got it.

Note: In regard to my previous mail about a further small change in design this
drawing is not affected at all :-)
(just to avoid confusion/irritations)

>> >Something else : you didn't make a common parent for IconView and TreeView
>> >(both relate to file management and have a lot in common) 
>> 
>> Yes, that's a good idea.
>> What common stuff did you think of for example?
>I had another look. ok, there is currently a lot of duplicated code between 
>kfmfinder.* (i.e. the TreeView) and kiconcontainer.* + kfmicons.*
>(including the list of functions that I pasted in a previous post, in fact
>the View Properties stuff) but ... (see below)

BTW, question in regard to the naming: Should we stay with kfmfinder or should
we go for TreeView (or KfmTreeView) ?

(my vote: I like TreeView (withouth the leading "Kfm") , because
 a) "TreeView" is imho more self-explaining than "Finder" (wdh is a "Finder"? ;)
 b) (in regard to the "Kfm") the TreeView might perhaps become more than a
plain view-directories-and-files thing but, in regard to Michael Reiher's
ideas, a completely configurable thing :-) (*really_looking_forward_to_this*)

*wild-daydream-begins*
For example I would like to see this:
(assuming the treeview would be extremly configurable and accessible via a
CORBA interface)
KMail extends the tree view by another root item in the tree representing email.
This item can be expanded to all the user's mailboxes:
-> blabla
-> yet another directory
-> ...
-> My Email
  |
  ->Inbox
  |
  ->Outbox
  ...

)

>> And in fact I did this for all views: All Konqueror Views (on c++ level)
>> inherit from a class called KonqBaseView (not visible as IDL interface)
>> which contains some common code. 
>.. if a KonqBaseView exists, it could store the View Properties stuff, so
>iit's fine. No need for the common parent I talked about.
>Well, I think so.

Ah, that's a great idea!

>Hum, for instance, showDotFiles means nothing for a HTML view ...
>So either we had a common parent for icon and tree views, which will have
>this showDotFiles stuff, _or_ we just have all the functions for any view,
>but changing showdotfiles for a HTML view will do nothing, of course.

I like the common-parent-for-icon-and-tree-view idea.


Greetings,
 Simon

--
Simon Hausmann - Tronical^Colorfast - <tronical@gmx.net> - IRCNet #colorfast

we have joy, we have fun, we have linux on our sun

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]