Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: EditGrid options

From: "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk>
To: <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de>
Cc: <pgadmin-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: EditGrid options
Date: 2003-10-19 13:41:44
Message-ID: 50018.80.177.99.193.1066570904.squirrel@ssl.vale-housing.co.uk (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgadmin-hackers
It's rumoured that Andreas Pflug once said:
> Dave Page wrote:
>
>>That's an easy fix. For example, Outlook puts a 'Filter Applied' label
>>at the top of the listbox.>
>>
>>
> Could be, I'm not sure if we can have a 3rd line in the header control.
>
>
It could easily be just above the control, only affecting the position of
the control when required, or there permanently, in a shaded colour to
make it look intended when there is no text there.>
>> 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,
>>
> How that? In global options? That's nasty.
>
No, like I originally suggested, a toggle button in the button bar who's
state is remembered between invocations. Similar to the auto-update button
in MS query, or XRCed to name just a couple.>
> Second menu is easier to use.
>
What would you have:

View Data
View Data (but not immediately)

;-) Seriously though, I'm happy to entertain that idea if you can think of
a way it doesn't sound ridiculous.>
>>That's certainly more palatable than a notebook, but I'm still not
>>convinced it's the best way.>
>>
> So be positive, and make proposals.
>
I did - I committed it to CVS. That seems like the natural way to do it to
me, which is why I implemented it that way. I'm happy to be corrected if
I'm wrong, or consider other opinions, but so far you have not convinced
me that my original design is not the best way.
That's why I asked for other opinions at the end of my last message - I'll
go with the majority opinion (and will happily do any required recoding).
Come on people - don't be shy!!
>
>>>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?
>>
> So get rid of that buttons.
>
And replace them with what? A neural interface? ;-)
>
>>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.>
>>
>>
> There's some aesthetical limit on button sizes. IMHO this limit is
> nearly reached. Standard size for MS buttons is (46,15d), btw.
>
Yes, but they enlarge as required. Right-click, Properties, and then click
the desktop tab on UK Windows XP (and probably others) and you'll see a
'Customise Desktop' button which is much bigger, but doesn't look wrong
because it's logically seperate from other buttons of standard size.>
> I'm counting 5 lines... CreateListColumns takes two strings as
> left/right header, and the size of the left header in DlgUnits, do you
> need less?
>
OK, 5. I'm not near the code right now. It still does a lot less but I'll
change it if you insist.
Regards, Dave.



In response to

Responses

pgadmin-hackers by date

Next:From: Andreas PflugDate: 2003-10-19 14:19:58
Subject: Re: EditGrid options
Previous:From: Andreas PflugDate: 2003-10-19 12:38:21
Subject: Re: EditGrid options

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group