World: r3wp

but the role of reactors is still not clearly defined to me
 - you have Carl on your GUI world, no - so just ask him :-)

graham, that's not a good alternative:

1. you create multiple ways of indicating validation

2. you may not be validating a field, but an entire panel or any 
other style

3. you still need to alter the style itself, which will be a ton 
of work.

Graham - it might not be only field, but also other styles, but it 
might be one of the options  :-)

give me an example where field validation is insufficient

Pekr:


- init already happens on window open. you can specifically validate 
and display init symbols in the indicators.
- possible to do with attach or set reactor
- panel validation already works

Henrik - the proposal does not need to alter the style, right? That 
is indeed good. But - I still have to think about the form design 
- do I have to count for the space for the validator? I talk about 
some alignment stuff ...

Pekr, correct. What you need to do is attach an option for how you 
want to validate. Then you need to place the validation-indicator. 
Then the rest is supposed to take care of itself, auto-updating, 
etc.

count for space: well, it should not be necessary as it simply is 
another style that you place after the style to validate:

panel 2 [
	field validate-indicator
	field validate-indicator
	field validate-indicator
]

like that.

graham, not insufficient. inconsistent.

The issue I have with validation icons is that it makes the whole 
display much busier

that's a small problem compared to working validation into each style

if your form is very large you will appreciate the need for consistency 
as you only have to check for red Xes to see where the problem is, 
and the validation system also automatically focuses the first problem.

also fields will eventually become sub-fields in tight panels, where 
the fields themselves may not be incorrect, but the overall value 
combination may be wrong, such as that for a date field and that 
can be for multiple different reasons. this is why the valid-indicator 
would contain a tool-tip to describe the problem. you would be eventually 
able to click on it, to get an overview or deeper help on how to 
solve the issue via the help system (not yet written).

Henrik - any progress on new styles, integration of resizing model 
into current system, etc.? You surely can't do business apss with 
just buttons and fields being the only styles available? :-) What 
is currently being done in the R3GUI area? (as View transition to 
Extension has mostly finished?)

Now we need to get R3-GUI to work again with the new hostkit. Will 
be finished this week.

We work on business apps (that's always our main focus). These have 
highest priority.

buidl & deployment system is currently done so we can do large scale 
projects.

call/wait is something we will need.

Pekr, I plan to begin implementation of dialogs and validation, but 
the plan has kept being pushed back due to lack of feedback from 
the community.

call/wait .... kissing your hands! :-) That is an integration problem 
with R3, thanks for that ....

As for business apps - that sounds fine, it is just that we did not 
see e.g. list of styles, you might need. Is there e.g. a tree-view? 
Tabs? Table is there IIRC (there is a screenshot on henrik's site)

You can't write business apps without these widgets .. so ... take 
it easy Pekr!

Henrik, don't you see why you're not getting any feedback?  You guys 
shut everyone out for months and now suddenly want their help with 
feedback.  Human nature doesn't respond well to such treatment.

graham, and I posted all the relevant information to validation and 
dialogs a week ago, the build system 2 weeks ago. zero feedback.

when is validation triggered? In DOS app generator I mentioned, there 
was such a functionality, that you could limit values to type - it 
was called 'vtg - variable-to-get, and it was used e.g. when you 
wanted to limit selection to floppy drive A, B values, etc. :-) Nowadays 
we have list-boxes, but I still can imagine special kind of fields, 
e.g. Date, IP field with various masks, allowing to type only numbers 
for e.g. But that would require validation being triggered on per-press 
basis ... just thinking out loudly ....

currently validation is triggered on window open to init state. then 
you can call it on the window as needed and it runs also as a reactor, 
hence every time a field is unfocused or a button is pressed. it 
also is triggered on window close, given the button that closes the 
window is a dialog button.

as for the type of validation, that is completely customizable. you 
can also scope validation, so you can say that a panel of fields 
may not be empty, by adding that option to the panel instead of each 
field.

http://rebol.hmkdesign.dk/files/r3/gui/236.png

Materials system is back in (just a quick test)

Cool :-) Cold you please say few words about the material system? 
What's its purpose, design? Is it more complex/flexible system, or 
just mostly a gradient/background replacement? thanks ....

the purpose is both to eliminate the need for fiddling with colors 
directly when creating a gradient surface for, say, a button, and 
both to store material settings, so you can switch quickly between 
them or select one for a style. so for gradients, instead of working 
with RGB values (unwieldy), you work with brightness, diffusion and 
specular.

I will try to reshape my question - I am trying to understand the 
way it is implemented in. Simply put - style is recently represented 
by one (or in future by multiple switching?) draw blocks. The draw 
block draws the widget. Now - where's the place for material? Does 
it somehow overdraws the whole widget (replacing original draw block), 
or does it influence some of original draw block parameters?

the material only represents colors and gradients. it doesn't do 
anything to the draw block.

and also - does material mean a skin? Or is material system going 
to be part of even more complex/flexible skinning? Note - those are 
just question, so no offense :-)

no, material doesn't mean skin. it's only a small part of the skin 
where you can reference a pre-calculated gradient by name for a single 
part in the draw block.

if anything, inspiration was drawn from 3D modelers on how they apply 
textures and surface to a 3D model. Bolek is working on improving 
the way that materials are created and used.

ok, thanks - now it makes sense ... you can cut those few sentences 
and add them to Material System: About - section :-)

but the material (gradient) is still represented by draw, right? 
I mean - there is no chance for designer to e.g. use some gfx tool, 
to create some nice material, as it is not convertible to AGG, right? 
Or would there be any way, via SVG for e.g.?

no, the material system simply calculates a gradient block or a color. 
then you are free to use it whereever you want.

Pekr, the basic usage is this: set-material face material. Where 
material is name from list of predefined materials. Of course you 
can add your own materials.

I know that I will be able to use it wherever I want. I was just 
trying to discover possible workflow. E.g. someone does nice Photoshop 
mock-up, and now you want to cut it down to particular pieces, for 
particular widgets. So it will mean "gradient hunting" - you will 
have to reproduce the possible Photoshop effect in draw dialect, 
am I right?

Rebolek - I do understand the process. I am trying to find out possible 
workflow, nothing more ....

btw - I expect we will not allow bitmap skinning/material? (I know 
that it does not scale)

It's not exactly in draw dialect, but yes, you're right. Of course 
there's still posibility, that you make your own buttons in Photoshop 
and just use the bitmaps.

Rebolek, perhaps post an example of one material, how the gradient 
is written by the user, etc.

Ok, this is current material deffinition (not all of them).

materials: make object! [
	; base material - normal color
	base: make object! [
		up: down: over: make object! [
			specular: 'high
			intensity: 1
			diffusion: [1 1]
			opacity: 1
			texture: none
		]
	]
	chrome: make base [
		up: over: down: make up [

   diffusion: [1.00 0% 0.78 49% 0.76 50% 0.7 51% 0.76 97% 1.00 100%]
		]
	]
	aluminum: make base [
		up: make up [
			diffusion: [1.00 0% 0.74 7% 0.70 70% 0.71 97% 1.00 100%]
		]
		down: make up [
			diffusion: [0.67 0% 0.78 7% 0.71 70% 0.72 97% 1.00 100%]
		]
		over: make up [
			intensity: 1.03
		]
	]
	; for use in container in various box styles
	container-groove: make base [
		up: down: over: make up [

   diffusion: [0.0.0.200 0% 0.0.0.255 50% 255.255.255.255 50% 255.255.255.220 
   100%]
		]
	]
]

This is combined with color and definition for draw gradient is created.

OK, nice. And then, in draw block, I expect variables being used, 
which will map particular preselected material?

yes, correct

In below code - why field does use different specs for validation, 
e.g. not using 'validate word in 'option block?

panel [
    name: field
    address: field
    city: field options [required: false]
] options [validate: [not-empty] required: true]

ah, disregard my question - 'required has nothing in common with 
'validation ....