[HeDiBo]

'HeDiBo' wrote:

In view of the other problems with the Disabled state of DevExpr components it's remarkable that in the checklistbox it actually works better!

Problem with lines too close together is solved :a3: However checkboxes that are disabled in a TsCheckListBox are still hardly different from enabled ones.

It would be better to dim the checkbox's text also, like DevExpr does.

Another problem is that the DevExpr TcxCheckListBox is not skinned in dark skins like TsChekcListBox is.

[HeDiBo]

'HeDiBo' wrote:

The TcxDateEdit component is not skinned properly in most dark schemes.

Although the skinning is now much better, now the down arrow at the right end of the control is missing. This is now true for all skins. Here is the Cappuccino skin again:

[attachment=6874:DevExprCalendar.jpg]

[HeDiBo]

Hi Serge,

The problem involves this statement:

Code:

{$IFDEF VER12_1_6}cxPCPainters, cxPC, cxLookAndFeels, cxPCPaintersFactory, {$ifdef EXPRESSBARS}dxStatusBar, {$endif} dxSkinsLookAndFeelPainter, {$ENDIF}

If you do not have the express skins, this module (dxSkinsLookAndFeelPainter) is undefined. So the same construction as with the EXPRESSBARS is needed.

I commented out dxSkinsLookAndFeelPainter and compilation went smoothly.

[HeDiBo]

'Support' wrote:

I'm agree with you, but I have no idea how to change a color of system selection.

I'm going on a holiday for a few weeks. When I return, do you want me to research this subject?

[HeDiBo]

'Support' wrote:

Maybe will be added new skins with new names like “Capuccino_contrast”

That's even a better name. Like it :a3:

[HeDiBo]

'Support' wrote:

These colors just defined in skins, do you suggests to change these skins?

To prevent existing projects to look different, maybe adding skins (for example Cappucino Bright).

Or provide alternatives that developers can replace themselves.

[HeDiBo]

'Support' wrote:

I wrote about cxLabel, this control has same font color as edit control.

I see, it was a misunderstanding.

I do not like the skinning of TsLabel for the dark skins mentioned above. It makes the text almost unreadable if your monitor is set to low brightness.

But I'll start a new topic on this subject.

[HeDiBo]

'Support' wrote:

Label and EditControls uses common function for a color receiving and I can't change that.

I'm not sure what you mean. In this picture:

[attachment=6862:LabelBrightness.jpg]

isn't the TsLabel color much dimmer than the TsEdit color above it?

[HeDiBo]

The solution happens to be much simpler:

Add TdxLayoutControl to the ThirdParty components and set it as TPanel if you want a skinned layout control. Set dxLayoutControl1.ParentBackground to True if you want transparency.

Sorry for all the fuss :blush:

Problem solved :a3:

[HeDiBo]

'Support' wrote:

You can add this type as 'Panel' and change used SkinSection:

Code:

procedure TForm8.sSkinProvider1SkinItemEx(Item: TComponent; var CanBeAdded: Boolean; SkinParams: PacSkinParams);
begin
if Item is TdxLayoutControl then
SkinParams.SkinSection := 'TRANSPARENT';
end;

I hope your suggestion is only for a temporary solution. It will not work at design time.

A permanent solution may be found in overriding this function in cxLookAndFeelPainters:

Code:

function LayoutControlEmptyAreaColor: TColor; virtual;

or overriding this one:

Code:

procedure DrawLayoutControlBackground(ACanvas: TcxCanvas; const R: TRect); virtual;

I'm not sure which is best.

Thanks!

[HeDiBo]

'Support' wrote:

Please, explain it, I will improve it too.

You'll have some work to do:

[attachment=6859:CalcComparison.jpg]

Good luck!

[HeDiBo]

'Support' wrote:

Please, clarify, there is no popup box? Or popup box is empty?

The popup could not be shown, because there was no pulldown arrow.

That must have been in the previous version, because now it's allright. :a3:

[HeDiBo]

'Support' wrote:

I think, it's not right, I can't control it in the DefaultEditorTextColorEx function, because this function used in all DevExpress Editors also.

I understand, it's problematic. Just use TsLabel I suppose. But in that case, shouldn't some of the skins have brighter TsLabel font colors? This is particularly true for Capuccino, DarkMetro, Matrix (even edit texts don't look bright enough), Nautilus (labels should be bright, not dark), Rhombus (again labels should be bright, not dark), Steam, Terminal4Bit (both labels and edits) and WOT (labels should be bright, not dark). Or can I do something about that myself?

I'm always using low brightness on my monitor, because if you stare at it all day your eyes get really tired from very bright colors. I think the alpha skins should also look good in lower brightness conditions. With the current color sets some texts are hardly readable.

Hope you had a nice vacation? Welcome back.

Vr gr ;-}

Dick

[HeDiBo]

'IPSteven' wrote:

v9 uses an edit field for Section Name property where as previous version used a listbox.

This makes it really hard to experiment with using other skin sections…

I like to support the request to go back to a list.

[HeDiBo]

'Marv' wrote:

I already found a work around.

Can you share your solution with the other members?

[HeDiBo]

'Support' wrote:

Hello Dick

I will have a vacation 1-2 weeks now, I hope to answer on all your messages after vacation.

I'll continue to test the DevExpr components in AC. So, I'm afraid a lot of messages upon your return.

I wish you a nice holiday.

[HeDiBo]

'Support' wrote:

Are you sure you have the latest version of acExtra package?

This code is changed already in latest files.

You're absolutely right :blush:. I didn't think these components changed so quickly. Wouldn't it be better to include them in the main stream of AC? Maybe with inclusion of some credit to the author(s)?

It is a bit of a nuisance having to do two downloads and 4 builds/installs in stead of one download and 2 builds/installs.

[HeDiBo]

'Support' wrote:

This list of keys used for different versions of DevExpress package, because changes in declarations exists there.

I already understood that.

But look at the definitions that were needed to get it to work with DevExpress 2011.2.9.0:

Code:

{$DEFINE VER12_1_6}
{$DEFINE VER23}
{$DEFINE VER653}

That list can only be made by trial and error. There's no logic in it. There must be a better way.:eek:

[HeDiBo]

'Support' wrote:

Do you know how this deprecated code may be replaced?

Code:

{$IFDEF DELPHI_XE4}
Seek(Longint(FHeader.Length + 4), soFromCurrent);
{$ELSE}
Seek(FHeader.Length + 4, soFromCurrent);
{$ENDIF}

[HeDiBo]

'Support' wrote:

I will try to do it later. thank you for suggestion.

It appeared a little bit messy. The place where I put the {$I cxVer.inc} statement is wrong, because it interferes with definitions in sDefs.inc (in particular it defines symbol Delphi5, which is wrong).

The following construct (although messy, I admit) will work:

Code:

{$I cxVer.inc}
{$undef DELPHI5} // Let sDefs.inc redefine this one

{$I sDefs.inc}

Good luck

[Author]

Posts