Surface Dialog

[OrbWeaver]

Yep, very good. Looks pretty HIG-compliant as well, which is a bonus.

[greebo]

I did my best, but I couldn't stick perfectly to the guide...

 

The dropdowns and entry fields along with their label are so different in width that I would have had to narrow the window significantly and this in turn would've violated the HIG, because one should stick with window proportions being around 1.5.

 

But heck, it's a guide after all.

 

To mention this here as well: The LightInspector is now toggle-able too.

[greebo]

General question: should we still keep the old code of the legacy Surface Inspector, Patch Inspector and TexTool? At the moment it's an option in the registry whether the new or the old dialogs should be used.

 

I'd personally prefer removing the old code for the sake of code cleanliness and because they're inferior (IMO), but I'm unsure from the mapper's point of view.

 

SneaksieDave? angua? Beta Mappers? Opinions?

[OrbWeaver]

We shouldn't be keeping old versions of stuff around "just in case", this will just lead to a maintenance nightmare and code bloat. If there are reasons why mappers still need the old versions, we should look at how the new versions can be improved to incorporate the required functionality.

[SneaksieDave]

Hm. It might be good to have them for user-friendliness (I'm thinking Doom mappers or hardcore radiant users coming over), but personally, I don't see much benefit in them, nor see myself ever using them.

 

Edit: yes, good point by Orb there.

[angua]

The new ones are much better, and there isn't anything that you could do with the old and not with the new ones, so I don't see any reason why we should keep them.

[sparhawk]

Generally old code shouldn't stay. If somebody wants to look at the old code, he can always use subversion and take a look at it.

[greebo]

The old code is gone now.

 

I went through the whole 3000 lines and searched for leftovers and was able to remove another few hundred lines of orphaned functions in other files.

 

On this occasion I saw that the TextureBrowser must be one of the oldest parts of GtkRadiant, because the code is really messy and some functions seem to be duplicates of gtkutil methods (which presumably were added later on). I won't touch it of course, as it's doing its job, I just wanted to post my findings here.