[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [XForms] Browser callback behavior

From: Bill Unruh
Subject: Re: [XForms] Browser callback behavior
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 17:57:52 -0800 (PST)

I do not use that function, so my opinion should be suitably discounted, but
it would seem to me that the Per 92 bahaviour is more logical to me. The mouse
click is presumably a deliberate action on the user's part and should
consistantly produce the same action. But as I say, I am not someone this
would impact and have not thought it through deeply.

On Wed, 27 Nov 2013, Serge Bromow wrote:

Hello to the Group,

Jens and I have discussed a change to the browser callback behavior and find ourselves unsure if this change will adversely affect other members code.

In the Pre. 92 era a mouse click on an browser line item would invoke the associated callback. The callback was called whether the line item was select (highlighted) or not.

The current behavior is to invoke the callback only if the line is newly selected. Subsequent mouse clicks on the line do not invoke the callback.

I am advocating for the Pre. 92 behavior. An example follows;

1) Highlight a browser line to display detailed information and activate edit features.
2) Edit item and save.
3) Browser is reloaded to display updated information, edit features are deactivated and call fl_browser_select_line to highlight the previously selected item as a guide to the user of their position in the browser list.
4) User wants to review detail data or re edit the currently selected line.

Pre. 92 behaviour;
A mouse click on the line displays detail data and edit features are enabled. This occurs since the callback is invoked even though the current line is already selected.

Current behavior;
A mouse click on the selected line is ineffectual since the callback is not called. Solution is to select another line and re select the previously selected line.

I see no reason to disallow a callback from an already selected browser line.

That said there may be reasons for the original change in 92+ code that we are unaware of so before we revert back to the Pre. 92 behavior we thought to ask the group to see if there are any objections.

Any thoughts welcome,

(P.S Those advocating for the Pre . 92 behavior may be eligible to win a brand new home in a country of their choice or eternal happiness. Some conditions apply!)

William G. Unruh   |  Canadian Institute for|     Tel: +1(604)822-3273
Physics&Astronomy  |     Advanced Research  |     Fax: +1(604)822-5324
UBC, Vancouver,BC  |   Program in Cosmology |     address@hidden
Canada V6T 1Z1     |      and Gravity       |  www.theory.physics.ubc.ca/

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]