 |
|
|
I actually want a combo, with a drop-down, and a selection that can be overridden by custom text.
That bordered on a programming question,  but I have one of those in the correct place. 
You really gotta try harder to keep up with everyone that's not on the short bus with you.
- John Simmons / outlaw programmer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brady Kelly wrote: I actually want a combo, with a drop-down, and a selection that can be overridden by custom text.
Ah, i see then... So you've entered custom text (an empty string), but ExtJS is still returning the value of the previously-selected predefined entry?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, an empty string, or a string that isn't matched by the TypeAhead thingy. I'm going to write some code tomorrow to do a lookup in the store, and decide whether to return the display text or the value text based on that, but this strikes me as something I really shouldn't have to do if I pay for a library.
You really gotta try harder to keep up with everyone that's not on the short bus with you.
- John Simmons / outlaw programmer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sounds like they designed the value aspect for list / autocomplete uses, without really considering the combo box aspect. That said, couldn't you just ignore the value entirely, always relying on the text instead?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm doing that now, but it is a pretty crappy compromise IMO.
You really gotta try harder to keep up with everyone that's not on the short bus with you.
- John Simmons / outlaw programmer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is it me or when it comes to these things you have to set the text/value as a pair. If you zero out the text and zero out the values you should have an empty list. If not right a routine you can call to blank the dropdown thoroughly and then either repopulate it or leave it blank. BTW I have a feeling is being stored by your postback event. Fix that and you probably will have what you want.
|
|
|
|
|
 | Why Expression Blend Sucks Today
John Simmons / outlaw programmer | 10:15 18 May '09 |
|
|
0) Because I can't figure out how to add a frakking reference. The dialog box wants me to select by frakking DLL name instead of by assembly name.
1) Because you apparently can't use the mouse to drag a control around, and you can't apparently use the keyboard to change the control's size.
2) You can't make the solution/properties/resources/tools panes collapsible - you either have them,, or you don't. Of course you could make them floaters, but it's a "pane in the ass" to have to keep moving them out of your way.
Who the f*ck is in charge up in Redmond? Mickey-F*cking-Mouse?
(I had to override the template for the ManuallyTypeNumericalList to allow an item 0, and that's why WPF sucks today.)
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: Who the f*ck is in charge up in Redmond? Mickey-F*cking-Mouse?
No, that would be an improvement. Mickey, if I recall, is able to assert control from time to time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...whereas all Balmer can manage is alternating dancing and ranting! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am surprised to find that the overall look and feel of blend is not in your list.
I have not come into terms with that funky color scheme yet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brrrriiiinnnngggg! Ladies and gentlemen, we haaaave a wiinnnnnerrrr!
The moron who decided a dark gray on dark gray UI was a good idea ought to be stabbed in the face with a shovel.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And lets not mention totally nonstandard UI elements. Nothing like re-inventing the wheel...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That's what modern UIs are about these days. Get with it, you know you can throw away the Windows Guidelines book/spec.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, the fact that the USER cannot control the way the app looks as far as color scheme goes (outside of selecting between a bad or a worse skin) is what I think is wrong with things.
I have taken enough design classes to understand the reasoning behind what they did, but they are very bad at understanding (the huge part about design int eh first place) that not everyone LIKES the same thing, and that some people love what the experts think is not right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The stupid motherfrakkers designed it for twenty-something art majors with color-calibrated LCD monitors whose mommies and daddies bought them high-end LASIK procedures as a graduation present.
They did not design it for middle-aged grumpy software developers with a job to do.
I posted my complaint on the forum for Blend and was told (oh so politely) to frakk off.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As I said before:
"Actually, the fact that the USER cannot control the way the app looks as far as color scheme goes (outside of selecting between a bad or a worse skin) is what I think is wrong with things."
I kind of like it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rama Krishna Vavilala wrote: I have not come into terms with that funky color scheme yet
Well your free to change it!. The XAML skin is located in one of the subdirectories in main installation directory.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good God we might as well step back to 1989 and editing .xrc files in unix. Gag me with a meta tag.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: 1) Because you apparently can't use the mouse to drag a control around
No, you can use the mouse, blend is just picky about what editing mode it is in before it will allow you to do that. Once of the tool palette icons puts you into 'select and move' mode.
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: 2) You can't make the solution/properties/resources/tools panes collapsible
There are a bunch of cool keyboard shortcuts you can use:
http://www.uxpassion.com/2008/09/top-10-useful-shortcuts-in-expression-blend/[^]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't want "cool keyboard shortcuts". I want it to work like the IDE does (or doesn't, depending on your outlook). It's called "continuity".
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: I want it to work like the IDE does
Why on earth would a tool aimed at designers even WANT to be similar to one for developers...you're really not getting the distinction between the two here are you John...
C# has already designed away most of the tedium of C++.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When even Microsoft (and their evil minions) recommends that programmers use Blend, the distinction is null (or "Null", depending in the context).
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Where do Microsoft suggest that? Or do they say that it "could" be used by a programmer?
C# has already designed away most of the tedium of C++.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In pretty much every question on their WPF support forum, they start every answer with "When I use Expression Blend...". That implies a recommendation on their part to use Blend to do any "real work" in WPF. When pretty much every programmer on this site (including some who work for Microsoft) say that Blend is a better XAML tool than the IDE, that is a tacit claim by programmers at large that Blend is better at WPF than the IDE. It is, therefore, a programmer's tool - NOT a designer's tool.
Of course, I could simply be misinterpreting what I'm being told...
Not bloody likely.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not being privvy to the actual responses from the forums, I'd personally say that no recommendation is given there whatsoever...."When I use blend" doesn't mean "you have to use blend", nor does it mean "Blend is the only / best way to do this"....
Furthermore, whilst I agree with the phrase that "Blend is a better XAML tool", it doesn't follow therefore that blend is "better at WPF"...It IS far better to do XAML in blend - nobody in their right mind would argue that VS has better editing facilities for editing XAML - but there's more to coding WPF / Silverlight than just the XAML...
I guess I just "get" why the two exist - they're there for different people to do different things in different ways...so it would be rather silly to make them nearly identical. I can understand that alot of devs will / do struggle with Blend, but it's NOT AIMED AT DEVELOPERS. Whilst you may not be lucky enugh to hav a Designer on staff (nor do we), for God's sake, you can't say something is crap just because you either don't like it or can't use it properly / in the way you want to use it.... (Reminds me of a colleague - started doing Silverlight, wanted to use a dataset, they don't exist in Silverlight, but rather than find out how to do it properly, he wrote a class that aped the way a dataset worked....)
Rather than taking the time to construct rants on CP about how you're the best thing since sliced bread, and Microsoft suck because they don't do things your way, why not spent the time looking up and learning how things are supposed to be done, you'd probably be fnished by now, and an awful lot less moody about having to use it...just my opinion of course.
C# has already designed away most of the tedium of C++.
|
|
|
|
|
