Re: EditGrid options

It's rumoured that Andreas Pflug once said:
> I didn't spent too much time thinking about how it should look, just 5
> seconds, but a modal dialog is the 0.1 second solution...
>
What is your problem with modal dialogues? They are used in all manner of
applications for setting options such as these. Not using modal dialogues
for things that are quick open/modify/close options can lead to problems
for the inexperienced user when they accidently leave two or three open
and then lose track of the parents. iirc, it was for this exact reason
that you made the add column dialogue modal (might not have been that one,
but you know what I mean).
Few can argue that Microsoft don't produce some of the best user
interfaces around in their mainstream products, yet they have no problem
using modal dialogues in situations like this.>
> I mean that applied filter (as soon as it is implemented)
>
It is now.
>
> and sorting
> should be visible, not hidden in that options dialog. This is
> especially senseful if you insert something out of the scope of the
> filter, and do a refresh ("hell, where did my data go!")
>
That's an easy fix. For example, Outlook puts a 'Filter Applied' label at
the top of the listbox.>
> No, thats *not* what I'm talking about.
> I'll be using EditGrid normally for small tables, thus I need autoquery
> 90% of the time (no filter, no sort). The other 10 % might be very
> long running, thus I'd like the option to enter the grid, having the
> chance to filter before the query executes.
> This would look&feel very dirty if filtering is done using a modal
> dialog....
>
I think it makes little difference how the sort/filter is implemented to
this (completely seperate) problem. What you are asking for is a second
view data menu option that doesn't auto query, however that would be ugly
as well. As it stands now, you are no worse off than in 1.0.0. With an
auto query toggle button, those that know they are working on large data
sets can turn it off in advance, or on first use during the task.
Any other way will either look like a kludge, or inconvenience to those
who want to actually view data when the select the option, not be asked if
they want to see the data as well.>
> Notebook was just the first thought, propose something better.
> Some expandable/collapsable options pane would be possible.
>
That's certainly more palatable than a notebook, but I'm still not
convinced it's the best way.>
> How about abbrevations if it really doesn't fit? This looks *ugly*!
>
OK, now I get it. Clearly you had too much beer last night :-). How can
you possibly say that abbreviated text will look better than buttons that
are 25% or so wider than normal, particularly when those button are
uniform sized in their own group, fit into the space they are positioned
in properly, and are visually seperate from any other buttons of different
size?
If you are going to try to enforce a style guide without consultation with
the rest of us first, at least make sure that you specify objects big
enough for perfectly reasonable captions.>
> Yep, you already found it. Still, I wonder why you don't use the
> existing methods. Creating the lb columns is a one-liner.
>
2 lines of simplified code is more efficient than 1 line calling an
overcomplicated (for my purpose) function. Not that it matters from a
performance pov, but it is more easilt understandable.>
> Regarding the ctlSQLBox xrc attachment: IMHO it's saver to implement a
> custom xrc handler for this; I'll check it in soon.
>
A good idea. How would xrced cope though? As far as I'm aware it's still
the best (free) xrc editor, and I'd hate to have to lose use of it for the
sake of a couple of lines of code.
BTW, anyone else have any opinions on the dialogue issue?

Regards, Dave.