User Controls (Active X) - Da Process
in [Visual Basic]
|
From: Karl E. Peterson on 10 Sep 2009 19:10 Eduardo wrote: > Karl E. Peterson escribi�: >> Eduardo wrote: >>> Karl E. Peterson escribi�: >>> >>>>> Another difference is that you have a reference to the form without >>>>> having to set it to a property. >>>> Sort of, yeah. You can't sink events from the parent without setting up a >>>> circlejerk, right? >>> I don't know what you mean here. It's quite easy to have the form's >>> events with a couple of lines of code. >> >> By passing a reference, right? > > You already have the reference, it's in the Parent property. Hmmmm, ... Y'know, I don't recall using *that* one together with WithEvents. Of course, you can't sink any custom events using it, just the standard ones. (Because you have to declare As Form instead of As Form1 since you'd never know the latter, more specific interface.) That's kinda cool. It definitely alters my view of the utility of invisible controls. This was my quick/dirty test: Private WithEvents m_Parent As Form Private Sub m_Parent_MouseMove(Button As Integer, Shift As Integer, X As Single, Y As Single) Debug.Print X, Y End Sub Private Sub UserControl_ReadProperties(PropBag As PropertyBag) If Ambient.UserMode Then Set m_Parent = UserControl.Parent End If End Sub >>> But it is about *you*, that you are a programmer extremely experienced >>> and exacting. VB is also for people that want to make programs easily. >> >> Heh, do I sound totally like an Olde Fart if I say that sometimes the "easy path" >> isn't? <g> > > No. I read about the idea the first time in the McKinney's book > "Hardcore Visual Basic 5". I don't know who was the first to come with > the idea, but it's not new to me. > > It's an opinion, but as I don't agree with it, now I'm taking the > oportunity to discuss it with someone very qualified (you). So if I'm > wrong, I want to see why. Oh, you definitely woke me up! <g> Yeah, I can certainly see good reason to use that to your advantage, if/when called for. Can't believe I was being so obtuse there. I guess I always try to genericize everything, and to me "As Form" was a barrier. It isn't, or doesn't have to be, especially for projects that just bundle the UC right up inside. > I remember that McKinney wrote that the Timer control shouldn't be a > control, and that invisible controls shouldn't exists at all (or more or > less that was the idea). I agreed with that at the time. I wonder if he ever thought about this usage. Anyway, for things like the timer, it's just kinda dumb. And not just because it's inelegant, but also because of the window overhead. Although, it is easy. > Besides the advantages I already mentioned (parent reference, design > time property settings), I can mention another one: > > Going to the default event's code with just a double click. > You double click in a Timer and you already are in place to write your > code in the Timer event. That's nice. Heh... I rarely look at a UI, but spend 99% of my time in the code windows. Clicking there would absolutely take *me* a lot longer. >>> Anyways there are controls, like the ImageList for instance, that you >>> *need* to set up at design time if you want to avoid loading lot of >>> files at runtime. >> >> But that one's just accomodating other control/language shortcomings, eh? > > a) Do you mean that every control that will need a list of images should > have built in capability to store the images? No, but that it should be easier to load images at will. Resource files are nice, and I use them when possible. But sometimes, you just have to draw things at runtime. VB is just "awkward" for working with stuff like that. That all said, I'm sure if I did TV/LV work all the time, I wouldn't have a second thought about it. As it is, I use those controls twice a decade or so, and *always* have to go lookup how to do the simplest things each time. > b) ...or that the resource management should be much better and easier? > I agree with this one. Bingo. > OK, I mentioned at least three things why I think that the invisible at > runtime controls are justified (in my opinion), but what are the real > drawbacks of having invisible controls? There aren't any serious ones. I mean, you do get the added system overhead of another window, which to the Ancient Byte Counters in the crowd is every bit to be avoided as having an unused array element. Mostly it's an "elegance" argument, I think. -- ..NET: It's About Trust! http://vfred.mvps.org
From: Karl E. Peterson on 10 Sep 2009 19:17 Ralph wrote: > Simply put: The advantages of an invisible ActiveX Control is that it is an > ActiveX Control. The disadvantages of an invisible ActiveX Control is that > it is an ActiveX Control. That's a useful way of putting it. <g> -- ..NET: It's About Trust! http://vfred.mvps.org
From: Karl E. Peterson on 10 Sep 2009 19:19 Eduardo wrote: > I don't get it... so you want to go back and have to write everything by > code again? Not necessarily again. (That's why so many of us were *so* pissed at MSFT with the VFred fiasco, afterall! <g>) But yeah, we'd like to have *total* control over the source code. -- ..NET: It's About Trust! http://vfred.mvps.org
From: Karl E. Peterson on 10 Sep 2009 19:21 Ralph wrote: > Or to put it another way. An invisible ActiveX Control is nothing more than > a 'regular' ActiveX Component, with container-awareness and a design-time > presence. and AsyncDownload! -- ..NET: It's About Trust! http://vfred.mvps.org
From: Eduardo on 10 Sep 2009 23:34
Tom Shelton escribi�: http://brucem.mystarband.net/vbnet.htm quote: I 've been accused of unfairly trying to read the minds of VB.NET designers. Maybe so, although *I think you can interpret peoples attitudes from what they produce*. People certainly interpreted my personality from the text of my book, and many of them seemed to do so accurately. But if I'm wrong about the VB.NET designers, if they really are VB programmers who love Basic and have the spirit of the language designers, Kemeny and Kurtz, then so much the worse. These results could only be explained by incompetence and stupidity rather than ignorance and arrogance. Matthew 7:16 (Bible) By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? |