World: r3wp

How0Who

0== ;-)

And by work you mean paid?

No, because this will than become a community project. I'm going 
to pay the RMA Team, which is than indirectly a sponsoring of the 
R3-GUI project for the community to keep the momentum.

*want* = yes

*can* = only sporadically.  Tough I'll make it a point to make integration 
of my research stuff into yours (so I guess that counts as working 
*with* you :-).

(like I did with testing of the custom renderer in r3 gui)

Henrik -- FYI: Can you confirm an odd behavior for me?  Whenever 
I minimize a panel and reopen it, it works as expected.  When I resize 
the object to a bigger size, minimize it, then reopen it, I get a 
weird strobe effect of the two panels, one the original size and 
then the other at the bigger size.

At least for Win XP SP3

Patrick, can you post the layout you are using?

Hi Henrik, I'm back -- Very odd, now I can't repeat the same results. 
 Resizing is NOT causing the strobe effect that I witnessed before. 
 In any event, that suggests it was something else -- not related 
to your code!

I'm not able to produce it either.

Robert - I can't work with RMA team by writing code etc. My primary 
job makes me come home between 18:00 - 20:00, then I have another 
company where we run 700+ wifi users, some other projects. I am not 
complaining, I like it :-) It is just that a) little of free time 
remains b) you would not want my "code" to oficially accept :-)


But - I don't necessarily be the one, who just talks. Give me something 
specific to test. I think I now will find my way with Henrik/Rebolek 
on my own. It is just the current release format (flattened source) 
is a bit uncomfort to study code segmentation and separation, and 
- difficult to know what changed, if there's no changelog. (I know 
I could use diff on 256kb source, but ....)


So - I think I will let it as it is - it is enough if e.g. Rebolek 
says just few words for the release - e.g. - please test new tab 
... and I can look at it, and givi it a run ...

Ok, that's a good start and helps us.

We are still buildin a bunch of infrastructure on our side, so that 
we can release stuff faster, know it will build for you, generate 
automatic change-logs etc.

Style browser as it looks right now:

http://94.145.78.91/files/r3/gui/241.png


Second validation prototype test window. The use of multiple draw 
blocks still doesn't work, so I'm resorting to funky yellow text 
fields to indicate validation state:

http://94.145.78.91/files/r3/gui/242.png

Good to have at least something visual! As for use of multiple draw 
blocks - is it feature which is going to be implemented? I remember 
when Carl did VID 3.4, it was not plan. But I could not understand, 
how else some more complex styles, could be built, displaying various 
states, which are not easily doable by only parametrisation of one 
draw block. If it is planned, it is a good news.

Yes.it will be definitely supported.

Pekr, already fixed.

http://94.145.78.91/files/r3/gui/243.png- Shows proper indicators

http://94.145.78.91/files/r3/gui/244.png- Shows validation report

Thanks. Btw - were we succesfull in getting in contact with the gfx 
artist? IIRC someone suggested one person to Robert, but I think 
that the person in question was not interested. I wonder if Amiga 
community could help here? :-) I think they will be kind of friendly 
to REBOL, because of Carl. Or put it another way - will you Henrik 
come up with some final skin, once there is a time to address it?

No action done yet. We need more things working otherwise the risk 
it to high to throw things away.

I will, but this will be saved for the end, when the GUI is stable. 
I don't want to discard anymore skin work.

I was thinking more about some mock-ups, rather than someone altering 
new styles to some new design. But as you said - it might be preliminary 
and there are more important things to solve first. If the  system 
is good, I bet there will be more stylesets/skins anyway. rebol.com 
needs some designer too :-)

New R3 GUI at:

http://94.145.78.91/files/r3/gui/r3-gui.r3

New validation prototype, which can run stand-alone, at:

http://94.145.78.91/files/r3/gui/validation.r3

any new stuff regarding core of the engine, or styles, which could 
be tested?

Validation notes:


1. can't tab out of a field and unfocus does not activate the reactor

2. numeric fields will respond to an empty field or a number. they 
are string fields for now.

Pekr, just worked toward getting the validation examples working. 
Fixed some bugs in this regard. If anything, try to build your own 
validation example. I'll be working on updated docs, so they correspond 
to this prototype.

Henrik - generally - do we have per-field validation, or per-form 
validation? I e.g. don't like systems, which lock me inside a field, 
untill I correct it. I hope it is the latter :-)

Both, afaict from the source.

The scope is whatever you want to validate, whether it be a field 
or a whole form.

And it won't lock you in the field, it just indicates it's not valid. 
So you can tab around like mad but the save button might not be enabled.

BTW, it's subtle, but if you make mistakes and validate, the validation 
will automatically focus the first field with an error in it.

So, it will both support Robert's method of a disabled save button 
and one that only validates at the end.

What I hate most about validations, is sometimes their strictness. 
I would break anyone's hands, who pushes me to write a phone number 
to some "standard". The phone number is used by humans anyway, and 
even then, it can be still parsed even by automat. My number is +420-777-172 
171 .... I choose my own format for the readability purposes, and 
I hate, when the form blocks me :-)

well, then you don't have to use it. validators are made from the 
user's perspective using the MAKE-VALIDATOR function to fit any format 
supported by the style to validate.

Must have selected value

 in item list 1, but doesn't mark a non-selection as invalid after 
 marking a selected item as valid and deselecting it by clicking in 
 the list-view somewhere below item "3".

This looks like great progress Henrik.

ChristianE, ok, bug in TEXT-LIST.

Gregg, thanks. There will be another iteration as new ideas have 
come up.

Henrik - question to your site being down on ML. I know that it is 
now available via IP address, but dunno if you want to get it published. 
Feel free to answer on ML.

hrm... I responded and it showed up on the list, saying that my mail 
address is blocked due to spam. Did it show up?

it did not show-up yet ...

Henrik - as for validation example - Numering required panel, 'f8, 
I have no value there, yet it shows positive validation ...

Parser issue. Will see if it can be fixed.

updated validation.r3. added also a field for the only-chars validator.

I'm thinking there is a design issue with validation, particularly 
the initial state:


The latest version will show that the "Only Chars" field validates 
as OK, which is technically correct, but confusing, as absolutely 
nothing has been entered in the field.


The issue is that the VALIDATE-PANEL/INIT function will see the field 
prefilled with an empty value and this passes validation. All fields 
that show a black dot, actually fail validation and a black dot is 
shown as the initial state.


I understand what this means, but it may be confusing for someone 
who is using the validation system for the first time. The fix is 
simply to add the NOT-EMPTY validator to the field, for the field 
to fail validation initially.

Is this easy to understand?


I've studied the issue with setting an initial state for each field, 
but then there would be a problem with the validation system understanding 
prefilled values, and I would have to add functions to the validation 
system to mimick SET-PANEL that setup fields in a special way. I 
don't want to bloat the GUI like that. This method works fine, as 
long as you know what's going on.

Are you replying to yourself?

As for me - this sounds so complicated, that normal person can't 
know what you are talking about at all.

I'm asking the question, but it seems to be difficult to understand 
the issue.

Pekr, if you try the validation.r3 file again, you will see one field 
showing up as OK.