World: r3wp

For example, I don't see it giving me the ability to produce GUI's 
faster or better.

Paul, what kinds of functions would you like to see in the R3 GUI 
to produce GUIs faster or better?

Henrik, the lack of an IDE guarantees that I wont be able to produce 
a GUI faster than flex.

The IDE allows you to layout way faster than you can by hand.

You mean, because you can produce UIs visually?

For BETTER, REBOL needs to add all the extra features - for example, 
Flex offers classes for validation of form data that are very robust.

Yes Henrik.

I want to see REBOL beat the pants off of everyone but I'm just being 
realistic here.

well, I hope the new guides system will allow creating an interactive 
editor in a few kbs. I haven't seen anything other than the specs 
yet, though.

Another important thing is components.  REBOL needs to offer much 
more advanced components and maybe some new functionality into existing 
ones.

To do this probably requires some extra style modes. Given the design 
of the R3 GUI, you can add special abilities globally to styles, 
such as the current debug red rectangle. You can probably add some 
actors to alter the behavior of styles to be suitable for a GUI editor.

Describe "components".

A component for example is things like, textinput, textarea, list, 
combobox, etc..

Carl was really clever here: Each addition to the GUI system has 
so far only been about 5-10 lines of code in one location. No redesign 
was required at any point.

Components are usually a class with methods that can be invoked for 
handling event processing.

Henrik, I would definately recommend you get your hands on Flex and 
try it out and see some of the advantages it brings.  It will change 
a great deal of how you look at REBOL.

Ah, those are called container styles here. They can be built a bit 
like LEGO bricks very easily. See this shot:

http://rebol.hmkdesign.dk/files/r3/gui/142.png

Design and naming is not finalized, however.

Paul: I didn't necessarily say VID was 3rd rate either, just that 
the experience is not all it could be.  Obviously I see merit in 
View if I take time to offer suggestions...

Didn't mean to imply you did Chris.

NP

Yes, Henrik, a style in REBOL is like a component in Flex.

I hope the container styles make it into the final design. This will 
make it very simple to make smart fields.

Petr: D-D-I - all things that struck me about Air that I've missed 
in View.  Integration is the feeling that the application fits.

Note that container styles are not available publicly yet.

A container style implies to me something like the canvas component 
in Flex.  I'm not sure what a container style is.

If your talking about how a container is in R3 alpha's then I follow 
what your talking about.

And on Design, it is about the UI designer getting what they want!

The current design of a container style serves two purposes: Visual 
integration and actor integration. This means a container style is 
built from a derivative of the PANEL style as a decorative container 
and contains other styles that are directly built only to fit in 
that style.

Each of those styles may contain actors that allow them to interact 
with other styles automatically inside the container style. So if 
you put a numeric field together with a mouse drag knob, the mouse 
drag knob automatically is able to adjust the numeric 


Note that this ability is generally available also outside container 
styles, as there is no design replication, but the conditions will 
be slightly different inside a container style.

Yep that sounds like a CANVAS component in Flex.

But for the casual user, all that is unimportant. Only the style 
designer needs to know this.

The casual user simply types:

	view [
		group 2 [
			label "IP Address" ip-field
			label "Gateway" ip-field
			label "DNS" ip-field
		]
	]

See Henrik, Flex has Hbox and Vbox container objects.  H meaning 
horizontal and V meaning vertical.  Where things placed in them are 
automatically aligned within.

Again, these are called "controls" in Flex.

And the IP field is built of 4 numeric fields. The CONTENT facet 
would contain that description in the style:

content: [
	numeric-field options [range: [0 255]]
	numeric-field options [range: [0 255]]
	numeric-field options [range: [0 255]]
	numeric-field options [range: [0 255]]
]

Layout and styles in the R3 GUI are two very separate issues. That's 
a very nice thing, since I can build some styles, even though the 
layout engine is currently broken.

an Hbox and Vbox equivalent would be:

stylize [
	hbox: group [
		facets: [
			columns: 0
		]
	]
	vbox: group [
		facets: [
			columns: 1
		]
	]
]

Flex is just a really ugly mix of XML, ActionScript and hardcoded 
SWF components. One thing is, that you can create forms quickly (with 
the Flex Builder IDE?) and another to create own complete application 
which does something more than submits data to java server.

any language that uses XML as its interface should not have the right 
to be called a language.

Henrik - what is this ip-field? I don't understand it a bit. Why 
should it be build based upon multiple separate styles? This seems 
overengineered to me, and not necessary. I would rather like to see 
simple field with some mask dialect. With your example - with 4 separate 
fields, how do you guarantee me, that my keyboard navigation (Arrows, 
hilighting) still works across 4 fields, as if it was just one field? 
Anything else is not acceptable ...

But see that isn't very intuitive to me Henrik.  Hbox and Vbox are 
names that give an indication of what they are going to achieve. 
 columns: 0 or 1 isn't intuitive.

We should not use containers where really not needed. I want resizable 
(or not) split window (that is the most important style - you can 
find it even here on altme), maybe general scrollable panel, but 
other than that?

Paul - what is not intuitive? Just define those two so easily as 
henrik showed in your stylesheet and since that time you only use 
their names, no? :-)

Paul, the point is that you don't see that as a casual user. You 
just use hbox and vbox.

Maxim, you don't have to use XML at all.  You can simply code everything 
in AS3 and then compile if you like.

(although we would probably just call them h-group and v-group).

Pekr: "I don't understand it a bit. Why should it be build based 
upon multiple separate styles? This seems overengineered to me, and 
not necessary"


Once you try building IP fields or any other field that is a bit 
more advanced for a basic field, you really will want this. :-)

Correct, Pekr.

Henrik - I think that actually very little number of devs here played 
or looked into new VID and its architecture. It is completly different 
by its capabilities to R2, so I think that most important task is 
going to be - define basic set of styles, so that ppl don't complain 
that Flash/Flex or some other tool do have this or that widget, and 
second - provide some nice default skin, maybe even replica of Flash 
UI, so that ppl actually will think that there is some new Flash 
related product, which does it so easily :-)

Henrik, I like Horizontal and Vertical even better.

how do you guarantee me, that my keyboard navigation (Arrows, hilighting) 
still works across 4 fields, as if it was just one field?


VID takes care of that. That's another important aspect: Keyboard 
navigation is also something you should have to mess with.

Paul, whatever name you want. :-)