Object and texture library

[Luis Carvalho]

Hi!

On Friday 03 January 2003 09:39, Andreas Zehender wrote:
> Hi Luis!
>
> Sure!
> I took a quick look at the tree view code. There are many references to the
> part. The cleanest solution would be to copy the code and to create a new
> class. Be warned: The selection code is quite tricky.
>

I'd much rather create a PMTreeViewBase and PMTreeView. In the subclass I'd 
had everything needed to connect to the part.

After looking at the code I don't understand the reasoning behind moving the 
selected objects list from PMTreeView to PMPart. Do you remember why you did 
it?

>
> Maybe that was not clear enough. I don't like the idea of a separate "add
> object to library" menu item. The library should be editable inside the
> browser when in a special edit mode, not the objects data. You should be
> able to set the data by draging objects from the tree view onto the
> browser, not to edit the data inside the browser.
>

We could have an additional button in the dialog's toolbar to had an empty 
object to the library (The icon could be a question mark, and all other 
values would be empty).

>
> My fear is that this method is too complicated to create huge libraries.
> Imagine the case that I want to convert a povray include file with 30
> textures to a library.
> I create a new library and switch to edit mode. I don't want to specify the
> library after each object, only once.
> I then drag one declaration after the other onto the icon view. That
> automatically creates a new object and presets the name and data. If you
> name the files <id>.* and choose an unique id for the new object, you can
> store incomplete objects inside the archive without any problems. You can
> then edit all attributes and the object name, because it is independent of
> the file name but stored inside the <id>.xml file. All attributes have to
> be editable after the object creation.
>

It could be possible to cache the last library an object was added to. Then 
building large libraries would just have an additional step of confirming the 
suggested library (no need to choose another one).

> > Select a toogle button for filter. When you do that a dialog box with
> > fields for Name, Description and Keywords appears.
> > You put in the words you want to search. The filter is then applied to
> > any library you select from the combo.
>
> You would still have to dig through directories to find objects. The search
> result has to be flattened.

I agree. The virtual library (maybe called search results) seems to me like 
the best idea so far that allows for teh same dialog to be used in both 
functions.

Regards,
Luis

PS: Regarding bug 51471, I can't replicate it and I haven't got an answer from 
Rivo Lak yet. Did you manage to replicate what he found? If not, I suggest we 
move the bug back to unconfirmed, instead of new.
Anyone else in the list who has a kde3.1 RC, would you care to try and 
replicate this bug?

http://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=51471

Thank you,
Luis