World: r3wp

which is why it hasn't  been updated for a while.  the one on rebol.org 
is the last official release.

its just old, but works with the rebol demo, (also on rebol.org)

it works well, it just doesn't have some of the latest features and 
very specific layout fixes.

rebol demo
 I meant  "glayout demo"

if you download the glayout demo, it will download the glayout and 
slim, for you..

(when you run it, of course)

Anton, I think I tried that, but that screws up other things: Parent-face 
in LAYOUT is set to none for some reason, and I'm betting it's because 
VIEW does something here. Anyhow, setting parent-face separately 
works perfectly, so I'm keeping that for a while.

Maxim, does glayout.r contain a complete style set or is it separate?

it includes many of the basic VID styles as default...   near the 
end of the file, you will will see a big style block.  which basically 
adds the glayout framework on top of the previous master VID stylesheet.

it has group styles, including scrollpane which automatically adds 
V/H scrollbars for nested content.

you will be amazed at how similar it is to R3 view... (by what I 
have seen of it.)

if not in looks, in layout engine capabilities.

Henrik, oh well. But I figured out a clever hack you can place in 
init to set parent-face.

window: layout [my-face: box with [append init [parent-face: does 
[parent-face: does [get last second :layout] none] none]]]
my-face/parent-face = window ;== true

maxim, Are you close to revealing your new website?

Anton, it looks like I'll have to try setting parent-face again. 
I have another situation with the resize engine that really requires 
init to have parent-face set. Grr...

nope... no good. reverted to different strategy. it gives more overhead, 
but it will have to do.

Henrik, what strategy are you using?

I was thinking you could redefine layout, since you have collected 
a fair few GUI functions and styles together. When it comes down 
to it, it layout doesn't do what you want, redefine it. (And I am 
guilty of not doing this for so many years too.)

Anton, I've not had the energy to take a look at what can be changed 
with LAYOUT, so what I do is try to stay within reasonable limits 
of what it can do and stay away from radical changes.


One thing to change, if it were, would be that INIT would be less 
limited, if it was run as a separate pass after initial layout instead 
of right when the face is created, but this may cause problems for 
styles that use INIT to alter the size and offset for the face, as 
well as produce subfaces that need to be initialized first. Also 
LAYOUT is not recursive and INIT may be run at very different times. 
At this time, INIT is limited, but you have a pretty good idea of 
when it's run.


In VID3.4 this is not a problem, since there is both an init and 
post-init action possible, so if I were to get rid of this problem 
in the right way, I might end up rewriting over 100 kb of well-functioning 
code.

Hmm.. well why not add a post-init to layout ? This would not affect 
any existing code, so you could migrate to it at your leisure.

(Why don't I add it myself ? Well, I might just do that.)

well why not add a post-init to layout

 you can't add it to layout. it has to be done after all layout is 
 done.

Ah.. I'll have to think about that.

amacleod: unfortunately life has been throwing fast balls at me for 
the last several weeks ... things like recurring water problems on 
my home, making all of my life really complicated and time consuming. 
 

I also tried something with remark which hasn't lead to useable code 
yet... so I am about backtrack to earlier versions and use that while 
I work on the next generation stuff.  


the next gen stuff is closer to Research than Development than I 
had predicted.  I thought it was much easier to leverage the technology 
within the web site/page cycle... but efficiency and elegence principles 
(in form and function) are hard to get right when merging persistent 
and volatile systems.

That seems to be the way of software dev..


I've been two weeks away from release of my project for about 5 months 
now...

I got this working this last night. Modeled somewhat on Openoffice 
Writer / Insert Special Character dialog.
do http://anton.wildit.net.au/rebol/util/character-map.r

Pretty good. :-)

Has anyone written a tree based object browser ?  Anamonitor is the 
only object browser I know of ...

I was actually thinking about writing an object browser, but not 
directly a tree-based one.

is there a way around having to focus a face in order to use the 
scroll wheel above it?

Graham, a generic object browser should not be limited to hierarchic 
tree structure. Will you have any circular references?

Henrik, scroll-wheel: yes there is. See my scroll-wheel-handler:

do http://anton.wildit.net.au/rebol/gui/demo-scroll-wheel-handler.r

Basically, I make an event handling function, called 'scroll-wheel-handler, 
open a window, then

	insert-event-func :scroll-wheel-handler
	do-events
	remove-event-func :scroll-wheel-handler

The event handler captures scroll-wheel events, looks where the mouse 
is, finds the face which it is over (a recursive function), determines 
if it is scrollable, and sends the scroll-wheel events to the that 
face's engage, just as if it had been focused.

(Complicated, huh? But I'm proud.)

Thanks

Graham, I worked on one a long time ago, with Ammon Johnson. We did 
it like Smalltalk, or the OS X Finder, rather than a tree.

Gregg .. was it ever published?

Anton .. no circular references

Basically these are XML files that are being turned into Rebol objects 
that I wish to browse.

I think we put it out on one of the IOS servers, Developer maybe, 
but not sure where else.  

I can dust it off and send it to you if you want.

Sure ... or post it to rebol.org ?

I made something quite similar recently; an expanding/collapsing 
dir-tree viewer, like the dir panel of a file browser. Each directory/file 
has to be an object, because I store some state along with it, like 
collapsed/expanded, and other interesting attributes can be stored 
in there in future, when I get around to collecting the info. The 
purpose of the app is basically to create an image of a directory 
structure, which can be saved to disk, viewed magnified etc. to give 
an overview of directory structure.

I'll clean it up to publish later.

So, you modify the object you're viewing to keep states?

No, as I scan the filesystem, I build the dir/file structure and 
an "associated info" object alongside each one, so it looks like 
this:


 dir-attrs: context [...]  ; <-- All associated directory info goes 
 here.

 file-attrs: context [...] ; <-- All associated file info goes here.
	file-structure: [
		(make dir-attrs [...]) %subdir/ [
			(make file-attrs [...]) %bfile
			(make file-attrs [...]) %cfile
		]
		(make file-attrs [...]) %afile
	]

So we can see the top level has one subdirectory and one file, and 
the subdirectory contains two more files.

I store info in the dir-attrs and file-attrs objects like collapse/expanded.

Actually, I think the real answer to your question is "yes", because 
I build a block/object structure, and I modify parts of it (the objects) 
to manage my additional states.

I think what you have in your situation, with objects built from 
XML, is different than mine. I take advantage of being able to use 
blocks in my structure which allows me to insert my additional associated 
info. With your object hierarchy, it's problematic to add your own 
extra fields for state because the XML, of course, might already 
have those field names as part of its data, so there's possibility 
for collision there.

However, (as I see in my notes,) I was strongly considering for my 
purposes a structure like this:
		file-structure: [
			%OHS/ [
				%adir/ [
				]
				%afile
			]
		]
		associated-file-info: [
			%OHS/ make object! [...]
			%OHS/adir/ make object! [...]
			%OHS/afile make object! [...]
		]