Re: OT: Religion in CLC posts WAS: Re: MF Collection Class speed

From: Pete Dashwood (dashwood_at_enternet.co.nz)
Date: 02/27/05

  • Next message: Robert Wagner: "Re: Treeviews" 
    Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 15:18:19 +1300

    "jce" <defaultuser@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:diZTd.119723$JF2.112878@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
    >
    > "James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote in message
    > news:UnPTd.508710$Xk.78771@pd7tw3no...
    > > Pete Dashwood wrote:
    > >> "James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote in message
    > >> news:OXMTd.506058$Xk.469246@pd7tw3no...
    > > So perhaps I shouldn't re-invent the wheel in COBOL for Treeviews and
    > > should search the Web for just the right component. Let me first lay
    down
    > > a spec :-
    > >
    > > 1. Treeview
    > > 2. Ability to have/not have, buttons/lines/LinesAtRoot
    > > 3. Expandable number of Levels
    > > 4. Both Label editing or calling a Dialog to do editing
    > > 5. Icons
    > > 6. Checkboxes
    > > 7. Colouring of Labels
    > > 8. Combo Dropdown lists attached to a node in a Level
    > > 9. Ability to build Treeview on the fly - from user input
    > > 10. Not on the fly - build the Treeview from a DB and update the DB
    > > 11. Using the Drop and Drag feature to move Levels around and
    accommodate
    > > updating the DB with those MOVES - AND MOST IMPORTANT, to ensure the
    Drag
    > > and Drop doesn't create a ***-up in the DB 12. Splitview - Treeview
    with
    > > an accompanying Window - like Kellie's
    > > insistence on using ListView
    > > 13. Pull up web pages/maps resulting from a selection.
    > > 14. Change sizing as a result of specifying the ImageList
    > > 15. What dictionary/collection features do they provide to access what
    > > has been selected
    > > 16. Wont get this last one - because it's me specifically - changing
    > > colour of icons or checkbox value or Label colour based on updating.
    > > I think that's a reasonably comprehensive list.
    > > 17. Component is for VB/Delphi/dotNet - forget it. There were examples
    > > prior to dotNet but the developers tend to be taking up the dotNet game.
    > > 18. Component MUST be usable from existing Windows environment prior
    > > to dotNet
    > > 19,. Last but not least - price - can go from $100 up to one I saw for
    > > $550
    > >
    > > As a promoter of using Components, "and... that is the only way to go",
    > > care to google and find me one that fits at least 90-95% of above
    > > criteria. I've certainly seen screenshots of most of the above
    features -
    > > but NOT in one component. And as yet, not one that satisfactorily
    > > described updating a database, although I'm sure some must have that
    > > feature.
    >
    > Why wouldn't you create multiple components that have solid designs (not
    ONE
    > component) and then sell them for $500?
    >
    > Seems to me that you just need multiple components with a fairly simple
    > vetoable event model.....I don't understand your obsession with ONE
    > component- kind of defeats the point. By definition, a component is not a
    > monolithic piece of code.
    > A combo box component, a db access comoponent, a label component.......As
    > for item 16 - I'm sure you can find a checkbox that you can change based
    on
    > updates.
    >
    > What does 18 mean? I believe Pete was espousing his beliefs for the
    future
    > (and 2015 is way out there...by then Java should be toast too)....I'm not
    > sure why he needs to comment on an architecture principle based on running
    > Windows 3.1/95. As with everything else, you could always write the
    > necessary software to run whatever you want to run on that platform.
    Even
    > Bill is getting worried that some Linux haxors are creating the necessary
    > libraries to run dotNet on Linux.....
    >
    > Fact is though, that everything is "de jour" and everything always will
    be -
    > the paperless society uses more paper than ever. OO went into
    hibernation
    > for years and then came back. Client Server has been and gone and been
    > and....well hanging on......SAP was on the ropes in the early 90s and now
    is
    > back....Siebel was going to conquer the world and has been sliding
    since....
    >
    > IT is a battle of techno geeks trying to have fun with code, and the
    > business is trying to find ways to cut funding and never the twain shall
    > meet. I've always said, coders just start moving up the business
    > chain.....coders are becoming configuration specialists....soon they will
    be
    > fully fledged analysts...nd then the world will realize that a lot of
    coders
    > are morons.
    >
    Er...that happens around the time they become MANAGERS...<g>

    Pete.

  • Next message: Robert Wagner: "Re: Treeviews"