World: r3wp

I think it would be too noisy to have curecode bugs for the GUI just 
yet, but that's up to Carl or Rebolek.

Doc can add it as a new project I guess.

yes, agree

But then the GUI project could be on GIThub as well.

Doc can add an R3GUI project, when he's ready and then we'll start 
using it.

Github: depends on how we continue to handle sources, but maybe this 
can be done.

style-browser kind of runs under AmigaOS - http://solie.ca/

cool :-)

font quality is not nice, but still - Amiga got R3 View almost running. 
One year ago I would not believe it. Now we could get some Linux 
guru onboard ....

http://94.145.78.91/files/r3/gui/panels.zip

All panel tests.

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


PANEL and GROUP no longer exist. You need to use HPANEL/VPANEL or 
HGROUP/VGROUP.

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

Style browser is updated as well to reflect this change.

Note that TABLE and its related styles are outdated and will cause 
crashes.

(same for DOC and PLANE)

Button can be focused. Small enhancement request - can we add enter 
reactor for the button? I would find it usefull being able to run 
the button action hitting enter :-) btw - panels-2 - can't focus 
any button after the script start. Only after I invoke first button 
press ... now R3 crashed big time :-)

Pekr, does it work with the spacebar? There could be a collision 
when using Enter, because it may be used to confirm the default button, 
which may not be the same one as the one in focus. That depends on 
keyboard shortcut layout, though.

Yes, spacebar works, thanks ...

Henrik - I just watched behaviour in Mozilla's Thunderbird, re button. 
There is 'default button in focus on particular page, so that enter 
works for that button. But - when tabbing, and IF the type is button, 
then default button is no more hilighted, and tabbed button is hilighted 
instead. When you tab away from the button, default button goes hilighted 
again. That way, both enter and space-bar works for actually hilighted 
button ...

The same goes for default Windows dialogs, and it is imo good behaviour. 
Simply put -enter stays as a default action for the form's default 
hilighted button, unless another button is tabbed. It unifies enter 
| space-bar behaviour for button types. If we stay with current behaviour, 
users might be confused, as enter will fire action on different button 
than the tabbed one. Of course it depends, and I would like to know, 
what is the functionality on non-Windows platform?

If you are able to move the default button using tab focusing, then 
IMHO, default no longer makes sense, because it overlaps tabbing. 
This is one thing that OSX does quite well and the idea is taken 
from there.


The alternative is to get rid of the default action and simply place 
the focus where default would be, but that means potentially lots 
of tabbing, if you need to activate a specific field.

Hmm, so OS-X behaves differently. Now what we do? Do we simulate 
each platform differently?

Activating a specific field would also occur in validation, when 
focusing an invalid field, so it would disrupt default functionality, 
if they are one and the same.

That is possible, since the behavior model is not very big.

But even under Windows, the different GUI systems may not behave 
identically. I would try things in Control panel and other Windows 
standard dialogs.

I expect it being possible. The question is - do we want rebol app 
to behave in OS native way, or just the same thru all platforms? 
I am for the former ....

yes, I agree on that.

I tried Thunderbird and IT Internet settings (which is Windows native 
dialog)

I aven thought about possibility to link to native widgets, but just 
to mimick skin parameters. I am not sure it is possible, but when 
you e.g. create skin, which looks like OS native one, then users 
will be confused, if you set OS native feel differently. Under windows, 
there's not much of possibilities, except for some Windows bar size/decoration, 
or font size. But under AmigaOS and e.g. MUI, you can change the 
look of widgets quite a lot. The question is, if someone would be 
willing to simulate such a complex system as MUI is, and define all 
the skins. The app would also have to be notified, that user changed 
central setting, to readjust ...

if we do that, there might be a need to define a behavioral model 
as part of the skin, but I'm not sure how much it encompasses. There 
are some little details that I expect to work in a specific way in 
OSX, which don't work in Windows, and vice versa. This means that 
styles may not implement these behaviors directly, but that is probably 
difficult to avoid.

I think we should categorize typical differences, such as:


- whether certain buttons are activated on mouse-down or mouse-up.

- whether a button action is activated when dragging out of a button 
and releasing.
- whether default follows tab focus.
- etc.


Then these could possibly be implemented in styles and abstracted 
away from the style as a behavioral profile for a specific OS.

Mozilla apps are not a good place to observe native system behaviour, 
because they use their own toolkit

Abstracting the things Henrik lists would be very nice

That is why I checked with native Windows dialog box :-)

Small status:


The Internet these days seems to be composed of a series of disk 
crashes (instead of tubes). Both Robert and Rebolek are suffering, 
which slows down communications, so no updates lately.

Maybe you should realy use github, at least for the open part of 
your project.

as we get a better arrangement on how to do that properly, yes. I 
think we can do this by pushing nightly from the server.

OT: Our new server us much more reliably setup. Three RAID systems, 
failover power/ethernet/..., back to the cloud every 6h etc.

If something happens at least we should be back to full steam in 
much less time.

nice! that's the way. just made a similar setup with SSD/PCI-SSD 
and a spacious raid 5 for the data storage.
for ultimate speed I can recommend PCI-SSD Instead SATA SSD.

We have a big project that needs Android TabletPC and Phones to run 
on.

How difficult would it be to have a an R3 GUI for these touch based 
devices ?

R3 would have to be ported ...

one interim solution would be to have at least core plus cheyenne 
and local webserver webapp ... but cheyenne will not be ported to 
R3 soon enough for you  imo ...

At this point it would be easier to use R3 as a preprocessor to generate 
apps that are implemented in Java than it would be to use R3 directly.

then why to use R3 at all? If R3 can't be ported or used, it failed 
...

Ok, I have understood we should talk about REBOL on Android in a 
couple of years from now.

But to break it down, assuming you want R3-only apps, we would need
- A native C compiler for the platform

- A rewritten host for the Android application model to support native-only 
GUI apps (are those possible?)
- An AGG port to the hardware/os
- Some tweaks to the event model to support touch and multi-touch
- Some tweaks to the R3 GUI that deal with the new form factor
- A new set of styles that are designed for touch

It is clear this path is not suitable for our project. We should 
look at Java.

At this point, the only plans I have heard people making for Android 
were to make an R3 host that would act as a plugin for the Android 
native API model, so that R3 would be a native library to supplement 
apps that are primarily written in Java. No talk of AGG yet in those 
plugins though.

hmm, but that sucks then .... I can's see anything special for the 
the touch - it is just different mouse. Multitouch is different beast, 
but I work with touchscreens since 2003 - some of them simply simulate 
mouse ....

Of course that would depend on what native plugins are allowed to 
do on Android. I haven't even heard of a fully native GUI app for 
Android (they might exist but I haven't heard of it), only CLI apps.