> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andreas Pflug [mailto:pgadmin@pse-consulting.de]
> Sent: 07 September 2003 19:11
> To: Dave Page
> Cc: l15e@mtx.ru; pgadmin-hackers@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [pgadmin-hackers] About pgAdmin III
>
> >So what you're saying is, if you want to develop complex
> >views/functions, don't use the nice tools we provide, do it the hard
> >way? If so, then you've completely missed the whole point of the
> >pgAdmin project :-(
> >
> What I say is that if view or function gets big, the wizard features
> become minor. I use the property dialog to create a skeleton,
> and fill
> it later in plain sql. The reengineered sql makes it quite easy...
Yes, but hardly friendly. I cannot see SQL Enterprise manager docs
saying 'if your stored proc becomes too large to edit easily, edit it by
hand in the query analyser instead'...
> >You should be able to edit any object through it's
> properties dialogue,
> >no matter how complex - you cannot start dismissing them
> because they
> >become too big - that's just ridiculous!!
> >
> Even a swiss army knife has more than one blade: different sizes for
> different objects.
Yes, but they normally only have one saw blade and don't tell you to
gnaw through the branch with your teeth if it's more than 1.5 inches in
diameter ;-)
> So how big do you need the editing window?
> I just checked under win32, I got 153x35 chars on the screen when
> maximizing the function dialog, and 156x47 in the view
> definition, on a
> 1152x864 screen. Is this really too small? Then I'd advise to use a
> 4096x3072 screen, and a 4pt font....
I didn't realise the windows were resizable - dialogues generally
aren't. In fact looking at them, most of ours aren't. From a good design
point of view, this is a bad thing because we have dialogues basically
performing the same function (ie showing object properties), that are
designed in an inconsistent manner.
Perhaps in the next version we should consider a different layout for
the dialogues - something that lends itself to resizing more that we can
use across the board, and something that is more visually appealing
(that's a criticism I've heard a couple of times in the past) as well as
functional.
> I certainly won't agree to screw up the window handling for
> getting some
> percent more usable screen size.
With resizable dialogues we won't need to.
Regards, Dave
