> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andreas Pflug [mailto:pgadmin@pse-consulting.de]
> Sent: 11 October 2004 16:47
> To: Dave Page
> Cc: pgadmin-support@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [pgadmin-support] Function editor
>
> Dave Page wrote:
> >
> >
> > That's kinda heading off in the direction I think
> Jean-Michel was tryng
> > to take pga1 when he experimented with an Oracle like
> Packages system.
> > It would require far more thought and redesign to make it
> natural to
> > /not/ use the prop dialogues.
>
> I don't know how that's supposed to work.
>
> e.g. designing views doesn't only mean to design them until
> all columns are included, and the syntax is correct.
> Additionally, the query plan needs investigation. To do that,
> you'd execute the select with some restriction, check the
> plan, optimize etc. At the end, you add "CREATE VIEW xxx AS"
> and hit F5. This is clearly more than property dialogs can
> deliver. Extending them would mean duplicating query tool facilities.
> For large views/functions, the property dialog advantages
> seem neglectable compared to the query tool.
Well, yeah, that's the point - you wouldn't use the properties dialogues
in such a situation. You'd have more of a development environment type
setup where you could design, build and debug entire sets of objects as
packages or projects.
> > Incidently, wrt the other solution of converting all
> dialogues to be
> > wxFrame based, assuming it works you should be able to set
> > wxFRAME_NO_TASKBAR to prevent the taskbar icons showing up.
> Not sure
> > what other effects that would have, but it probably would then need
> > some dialogue refactoring to include sizers on everything.
>
> <shrug>
> I won't accept resizing of non-resizable contents, which
> includes most property dialogs.
You already added it to dlgFunction etc. when you made them sizeable in
order to enlarge the function body textbox. We should aim for
consistency - either all dialogues are fixed (and appropriate fields can
be editted in a pop-off editor or similar), or they are not - hence both
of my suggestions so far.
Regards, Dave