On 22 Feb 2013, at 18:18, Quincey Morris wrote:
On Feb 22, 2013, at 08:32 , Dave wrote:
As long as you are not running on the main thread there is no real
difference between a Sync or ASync operation as far as any of the
issues you mention above are concerned.
You're correct that, at so
I'm at an early stage of developing my application and up to this point
whenever I've made a changes to the core data model, I've simply trashed the
old one and reimported default data. However I'm now at a point where I'd like
to begin using the thing and, as a result, I want to keep the old d
Generally, using 4 exclamation marks in a sentence (or three question marks,
come to think of it) is considered "yelling".
Cheers,
-- Uli Kusterer
"The Witnesses of TeachText are everywhere..."
http://www.zathras.de
On Feb 22, 2013, at 8:32 AM, Dave wrote:
> Of course there are threading "issue
At 12:26 PM + 2/24/13, Dave wrote:
I think I see what you mean, but I'd argue that there are still
"threading" issues, the OS will create the Background Threads and
take care of calling you back on the main thread, I agree, and, if
that's all you were doing, it might be said to have "No Thr
On 25 Feb 2013, at 13:57, Steve Sisak wrote:
At 12:26 PM + 2/24/13, Dave wrote:
I think I see what you mean, but I'd argue that there are still
"threading" issues, the OS will create the Background Threads and
take care of calling you back on the main thread, I agree, and, if
that's a
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013, at 07:18 AM, Dave wrote:
> Agreed. but that is true of anything, I am comfortable with Multi-
> Threading so it's not really an issue for me.
Someone who's truly comfortable with multithreading would be relishing
the opportunity to not use it.
--Kyle Sluder
Tom,
The data store doesn't have a copy of the model in it, it just has hashes that
are used to quickly compare the store to the data model trying to open it. In
order for migration to work you will need to have both the old and new data
models. In lightweight migrations Core Data uses the two v
On Feb 22, 2013, at 11:08 AM, Ken Thomases wrote:
> Well, I'm sorry that you're frustrated but many aspects of development
> require the application of human intelligence and can't be automated. This
> is one of them. If you actually go through the exercise of reviewing an
> object's retain/
I'm seeing a situation where, after successfully opening, NOT printing, and
then closing a document x number of times via Finder's Print command, our app
will stop receiving requests to open the same or any other document. I've added
an override for initWithContentsOfURL:ofType:error: just to se
At 3:18 PM + 2/25/13, Dave wrote:
On 25 Feb 2013, at 13:57, Steve Sisak wrote:
Created A, B, C, make C dependent on A, B, submit all of them to an
NSOperationQueue and wait for C to complete (or put your completion
code on a block dependent on C -- NSBlockOperation makes this
really easy.
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013, at 02:45 PM, Steve Sisak wrote:
>
> The current trend is away from threads and toward asynchronous
> programming.
>
> That's orthogonal to whether your tasks are run on a single
> (XXRunLoop) or multiple (GCD) threads -- the advantage of GCD is that
> the system gets do de
This is the first time I'm trying to programmatically use autolayout, and I
can't seem to do a simple thing.
I'm creating a bunch of views using an NSViewController subclass for each, and
adding them to a window (the window created from the default Cocoa App
template).
I programmatically build
On Feb 25, 2013, at 8:33 PM, Rick Mann wrote:
> This is the first time I'm trying to programmatically use autolayout, and I
> can't seem to do a simple thing.
>
> I'm creating a bunch of views using an NSViewController subclass for each,
> and adding them to a window (the window created from t
Thanks, Kyle!
On Feb 25, 2013, at 21:55 , Kyle Sluder wrote:
> Specifically, you are adding them to the window's content view, correct? I'll
> assume so.
Yes, that's correct.
>>
>> I programmatically build a view layout string that looks like this:
>>
>> |[view0][view1]
>
> This leaves t
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013, at 10:04 PM, Rick Mann wrote:
> IB defaults a lot of hugging/compression constraints to 250. Do I need to
> increase those to 501 or more, as well?
Yes for the hugging constraints. Otherwise the window size will win as
the user drags to resize the window.
Think of window dra
On Feb 25, 2013, at 22:38 , Kyle Sluder wrote:
> Yes for the hugging constraints. Otherwise the window size will win as
> the user drags to resize the window.
>
> Think of window drag-resizing as installing a temporary constraint that
> follows the mouse at priority 500. Think of content huggin
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013, at 10:46 PM, Rick Mann wrote:
> Well, it's closer to working, but still not correct. If I don't pre-size
> the window, it never gets resized, even though all the constraints are
> above 500. Vertically it seems to be perfectly hugging my labels
> (verified by changing the font
On Feb 25, 2013, at 23:03 , Kyle Sluder wrote:
> You must still have an underspecified system of constraints in the
> horizontal direction. Unfortunately, your description of your constraint
> system lacks sufficient detail for debugging, which is already difficult
> to do in textual form.
I li
On Feb 25, 2013, at 23:03 , Kyle Sluder wrote:
> You must still have an underspecified system of constraints in the
> horizontal direction. Unfortunately, your description of your constraint
> system lacks sufficient detail for debugging, which is already difficult
> to do in textual form.
>
>
On Feb 25, 2013, at 11:34 PM, Rick Mann wrote:
>
> On Feb 25, 2013, at 23:03 , Kyle Sluder wrote:
>
>> You must still have an underspecified system of constraints in the
>> horizontal direction. Unfortunately, your description of your constraint
>> system lacks sufficient detail for debugging,
On Feb 25, 2013, at 23:44 , Kyle Sluder wrote:
> You'll never see the constraints created for content hugging or compression
> resistance.
>
> IB refuses to let your interface be underspecified. If you remove a
> constraint necessary to fully specify your interface, it will tend to install
>
On Feb 25, 2013, at 11:47 PM, Rick Mann wrote:
>
> On Feb 25, 2013, at 23:44 , Kyle Sluder wrote:
>
>> You'll never see the constraints created for content hugging or compression
>> resistance.
>>
>> IB refuses to let your interface be underspecified. If you remove a
>> constraint necessary
22 matches
Mail list logo
