Changed behaviour of "xtpTabLayoutSizeToFit"

Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic

Hello,

my clients required to make the autohidden tabs as long as possible, that is, to use the whole available space. So I've set the layout to "xtpTabLayoutSizeToFit", then declared CXTPTabPaintManager::SizeToFit() as virtual and overrode it. In my override, I allow not just to shrink tabs if it's needed, but I also make them longer whenever possible. It works fine, so instead of the default behaviour, I get this special behaviour of mine - which is the desired state:

            (tabs are resized to take the whole space available)

(I've defined also a maximal tab length that must not be exceeded)

This would be fine; the only problem is that when autohiding another
group of panes, the first group doesn't get resized to leave some space
for the second group. That means, the second group will get only the
rest of the space -- the space which has not been used up by group 1:

Now, if I keep reducing the width of the main window, the width of the 1st group remains unchanged, so only the 2nd group keeps shrinking until it disappears completely. Group 1 will start shrinking only when group 2 is completely invisible (has a zero-pixel width). Basically, the problem is that group 1 is "greedy"!

What do you think, how can the autosizing be changed to resize all tab groups, so that they can share the available space fairly?

Thank you, in advance!

Author	Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic
akur Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Senior Member Joined: 16 May 2006 Status: Offline Points: 139	Post Options Post Reply Quote akur Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Topic: Changed behaviour of "xtpTabLayoutSizeToFit" Posted: 25 January 2007 at 3:35am
	Hello, my clients required to make the autohidden tabs as long as possible, that is, to use the whole available space. So I've set the layout to "xtpTabLayoutSizeToFit", then declared CXTPTabPaintManager::SizeToFit() as virtual and overrode it. In my override, I allow not just to shrink tabs if it's needed, but I also make them longer whenever possible. It works fine, so instead of the default behaviour, I get this special behaviour of mine - which is the desired state: (tabs are resized to take the whole space available) (I've defined also a maximal tab length that must not be exceeded) This would be fine; the only problem is that when autohiding another group of panes, the first group doesn't get resized to leave some space for the second group. That means, the second group will get only the rest of the space -- the space which has not been used up by group 1: Now, if I keep reducing the width of the main window, the width of the 1st group remains unchanged, so only the 2nd group keeps shrinking until it disappears completely. Group 1 will start shrinking only when group 2 is completely invisible (has a zero-pixel width). Basically, the problem is that group 1 is "greedy"! What do you think, how can the autosizing be changed to resize all tab groups, so that they can share the available space fairly? Thank you, in advance!

Oleg Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Admin Group Joined: 21 May 2003 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 11234	Post Options Post Reply Quote Oleg Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: 25 January 2007 at 5:03am
	Hi, you can modify sources in CXTPDockingPaneAutoHidePanel::RefreshManagersArray. And modify rcClient before call pManager->GetPaintManager()->RepositionTabControl(pManager, pDC, rcClient);
	Oleg, Support Team CODEJOCK SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS

akur Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Senior Member Joined: 16 May 2006 Status: Offline Points: 139	Post Options Post Reply Quote akur Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: 26 January 2007 at 5:41am
	Thank you, oleg, I think this will help me. Anyway, I'm glad that my long explanation above could be understood without any difficulties. I was not sure whether it's clear enough.