home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
Atari Mega Archive 1
/
Atari Mega Archive - Volume 1.iso
/
lists
/
gem
/
l_1199
/
933
< prev
next >
Wrap
Internet Message Format
|
1994-08-27
|
4KB
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 1994 09:08:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: Rick Flashman <rflashma@mhc.mtholyoke.edu>
Subject: Re: Dialogs!
To: gem-list@world.std.com
In-Reply-To: <Pine.3.87.9407210138.A781-0100000@grad>
Message-Id: <Pine.3.89.9407210852.F6597-0100000@mhc.mtholyoke.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
On Thu, 21 Jul 1994, Timothy Miller wrote:
> Hey, people!
>
> We're saying to stop using dialogs.
>
> Ok... you just threw away part of the OS and told peope to replace it
> with their own code (or a library).
>
> Hey, this is the way GEM is. If we're going to require dialogs to be in
> windows, then it should made part of the operating system.
Geneva includes documented support for placing dialogs in windows.
> If we want all dialogs to be in windows, then we have to go knocking on
> the doors of the OS developers and demand that they change the basic
> functionality of the OS. MultiTOS and Geneva should put dialogs for apps
> automatically into windows and handle them accordingly.
Errr... Think about it. This is nowhere as easy as you think. And if you
manage to pull it off, most older programs will simply crash when a
non-dialog part of it is accessed while the user is in a dialog.
> But then you screw over everyone using an older machine without Geneva or
> MultiTOS, and you screw up every older program running under the new OS
> that expects the dialog box to stay in the same spot.
>
> You're not asking for extentions to the OS, consistency, and added
> functionality. You're asking for REVOLUTION! And as you know revolution
> does not come without a BIG price.
Here's the basic problem. You cannot cause a REVOLUTION on a machine if
90% of all the software anyone will use on it is already written. That the
basic difference between MultiTOS and Geneva. MultiTOS was written so that
developers can take advantage of it (with very little support for older
applications). Geneva was written for current applications (with support
for new applications).
> I'm as supportive of dialogs-in-windows as the next guy, but we have to
> face reality. Good option, yes. Requirement? Definately NOT!
No program should do one or the other. I prefer the option (user
selectable). Then if the application runs out of windows (like it does
easily on a 7 window system) it starts using dialog boxes until windows
are available again.
> Every new program that supports that section of the GEM-List standards
> should put dialogs in windows. Fine. Every program that wants to
> properly support multuitasking, definately.
See above.
> But then you still have the problem of every program containing extra
> code for handling dialogs in windows, and each program having a different
> handler from a different library developer. There will be a lack of
> consistency and a lot of wasted space.
There already is.
> Until this is part of the OS, you can't make it a requirement. A little
> 5k DA that's intended to make some setting and then quit certainly
> shouldn't be required to puts its dialog in a window. You won't have the
> dialog open long enough!
Which OS? We've put support into Geneva. What other environments
have/don't have this support?
> Can someone tell me how to set up menu_popup's? I'm baffled. Do I
> create a form with just string in it and put that in the MENU structure?
> I'm kinda lost. Could someone explain the process that one goes
> through? What do you do in the resource editor, what you do in your
> code, etc? Thanks!
You obviously need Geneva. Sample code is included. (tongue-in-cheeck) ;-)
--
Rick Flashman, Gribnif Software Tel 413.247.5620
P.O. Box 779, Northampton, MA 01061-0779 Fax 413.247.5622
For customer support/information please email "gribnif@genie.geis.com".