[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 8:01:02
[Download RAW message or body]



On Mon, 13 Sep 1999, Dawit Alemayehu wrote:

> Greetings,
> 
> 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... :)
> [snipped]
> 
> To me it looks like the current treeview in konqueror is actually a treeview
> with details.  It really confused me when I used it the first time because I
> was expecting a treeview to be like the one in kfm or kruiser or Windows
> Explorer etc  So for what it is worth here is my suggestion.
> 
> IMHO, what is called a treeview should act just like it is in the application
> mentioned above.  As already stated, it should not have multiple columns
> and be configurable.  The current treeview should either be converted to a
> a normal view option - Details ( aka Long View in kfm ) and should not be a
> treeview or become one of the many view formatting options : Large Icons, Small
> Icons, Details, List, Details w/ Treeview ?? (I personally prefer the first one).

Hmm, I personally like Torben's new treeview very much, because it
provides fast directory access, combined with file management, so that one
doesn't have to switch between treeview and iconview all the time.

IMHO we should try to find a way to "host" both in konqueror.

> The other question I guess is view follow view issue.  In case of the treeview
> this should be simple.  The treeview should be bound to whichever is the active
> view and adjusts itself accordingly.

This does not work, because the treeview is treated like every other view.
So when the user clicks on an item in the treeview, then treeview becomes
the active view (watch the view-frame) .

But well, we could change this behaviour for the treeview, so that the
treeview is a "passive" view (without view-frame) .

Hmm, wait, Dawit, I like your idea very much, this could eventually be a
very smart solution for the view-follows-view issue in general:
Why not have a sort of checkbox in the view-frame. When it is activated
(checked), the view becomes a passive view.

There can be multiple passive views, but only one active view (the active
view is selected by the user via clicking on the view-frame, as it is
indicated by the different color of the frame) .

When opening an URL in a passive view (not matter what kind of view), the
mainview automatically redirects the URL to the active view (as there can
be only one) .


Uhm, I guess this is exactly what Michael proposed, right? (just with
different namings : master=active, slave=passive) or?

Ciao,
 Simon

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