-----Original Message-----
From: "Andreas Pflug"<pgadmin@pse-consulting.de>
Sent: 30/04/06 16:19:51
To: "Dave Page"<dpage@vale-housing.co.uk>
Cc: "pgadmin-hackers@postgresql.org"<pgadmin-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Lightspeed for frmQuery and other issues.
>
> It wasn't removed explicitely, but the underlying class that didn't meet
> the requirement was backed out. You've painted the wall before
> wallpapering it.
Quickreport sat over that class as well - is that now broken too?
Please restore the functionality or I will back out the patch until it is completed in it's entirety.
You complain about the work that led to significant speed increase from the original code, but at least we busted a gut
tomake sure it didn't break any existing functionality.
> It's not a problem of the factories, they do what they should and will
> work *if used*.
Like I said, I'll look at this. I didn't grok that the failed attempt you mentioned was only a minor rejig.
/D
-----Unmodified Original Message-----
Dave Page wrote:
>
> When asked for further info about *that* todo, you didn't give any
> helpful answers :-(
Well, anybody not knowing how to code a virtual ListView shouldn't start
on that...
>
> However, I am not complaining about that change - I am complaining
> that a copy/paste feature was removed - that is unrelated to the
> virtual listview/grid issue.
It wasn't removed explicitely, but the underlying class that didn't meet
the requirement was backed out. You've painted the wall before
wallpapering it.
>
>
>> The reporting stuff is going to frustrate you and me as well. I
>> tried to fix at least the menuing stuff, but had to retract,
>> realizing that you kind-of reinvented the most ugly interaction
>> between the MNU_ enumeration and schema objects acting on that I
>> removed months ago. This basically means that it can't be
>> refactored partially, but essentially needs rewrite. The current
>> implementation style is that of pgAdmin 0.1 to 1.2, which was
>> becoming more and more painful when adding new features. I'm less
>> than inclined to accept having this creeping back in.
>
>
> Like I said, I'll look at changing it to work like the other menus
> you suggested - but if you're saying the factories cannot do what is
> required, then they either need fixing, or it can stay as is.
It's not a problem of the factories, they do what they should and will
work *if used*. But you basically circumvented them, and did all the
stuff they're supposed to do once again.
Regards,
Andreas
