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

List:       kfm-devel
Subject:    RE: Configurable treeview in konqueror
From:       Simon Hausmann <shaus () uermel ! Med ! Uni-Magdeburg ! DE>
Date:       1999-09-14 7:43:26
[Download RAW message or body]



On Mon, 13 Sep 1999, David Faure wrote:

> > On Mon, 13 Sep 1999, David Faure wrote:
> > 
> > > > 
> > > > Hmmm, or perhaps we should stay with one column for *this* 
> > > > treeview and
> > > > keep the kfmtreeview (the current one) as additional treeview 
> > > > available?
> > > 
> > > Oh I see what you mean (after reading 3 times) ;)
> > > Yes, I fully agree.
> > > Otherwise there is a huge mix between
> > > * a treeview starting at a given URL (like the current one, which 
> > > we can ask for any URL)
> > > * the configurable treeview, without details, a bit like 
> > the ms explorer
> > > one. Except that it's 100% configurable.
> > > 
> > > Yup, sounds good. Let's keep them two different things.
> > > But then we need a name for this configurable tree... :)
> 'main tree' ?

sounds ok for me :)
 
> > ..Yes, and we need a final decision about the view-follows-view issue,
> > preferably *now* :-)
> > (in case of trouble I suggest the maintainer-takes-the-final-decision
> > approach :)
> 
> ok, take the final decision, then ! :)
> (You're doing much more work on konqueror than me, so you're the real
> maintainer ! But I'm still listed as the one, so that you don't lose
> your time answering to bug reports ... :)))

no no :)

I won't take the decision, because I'm simply bad in GUI design and such.

But as the discussion goes on for nearly several months now, without a
final result, I think it'd be the best to simply go on and implement on
approach. Then everyone here can test/see, so that we have a kind of basis
:)

(..continued below...)

> For that precise matter, the view-follows-view issue, I really didn't follow
> the discussion very much. 
> What about a small box in the konq frame, like has been suggested, but not
> for
> draggging and dropping. Rather a box with a 'link' icon, and if you press it
> on both views, then they are linked. (this means you can't link 2 iconviews
> to 2 treeviews respectively, but I think it's good enough for everyday use).
> And : if there is only one treeview shown, then clicking on a link icon
> in the iconview automatically clicks the link icon in the treeview.

This sounds very nice IMHO.

Anyone wants to implement it, for testing purpose?

Otherwise I'll give it a shot tonight.

I guess one of the reasons why the discussion takes so long is that our
view system is still pretty complex... I mean: the flexibiliy we provide
makes it somehwat hard to find an easy approach, or?

IMHO the solution (as proposed by Waldo) is to make things as easy as
possible for the user by providing some (many?) predefined profiles, ready
for everyday usage :)

Ciao,
 Simon

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