I want to try to disable the UITextTapRecognizer, which I think is a built in property of the UITextView, as I suspect it is interfering with a tap gesture recognizer that I want to implement. How is it possible to do this?
Thanks for reading!
I'm not sure this answers your question directly (i.e. "disable the UITextTapRecognizer"), but I think it might help. You can prevent that tapRecognizer from recognizing gestures, thereby basically "disabling" it (I think).
"You can prevent gesture recognizers from looking at specific touches
or from even recognizing a gesture. You can specify these “prevention”
relationships using either delegation methods or overriding methods
declared by the UIGestureRecognizer class.
The UIGestureRecognizerDelegate protocol declares two optional methods
that prevent specific gesture recognizers from recognizing gestures on
a case-by-case basis."
Try the gestureRecognizerShouldBegin: or gestureRecognizer:shouldReceiveTouch: delegate protocol methods.
"In addition, there are two UIGestureRecognizer methods (declared in
UIGestureRecognizerSubclass.h) that effect the same behavior as these
delegation methods. A subclass can override these methods to define
class-wide prevention rules."
look at:
- (BOOL)canPreventGestureRecognizer:(UIGestureRecognizer *)preventedGestureRecognizer;
- (BOOL)canBePreventedByGestureRecognizer:(UIGestureRecognizer *)preventingGestureRecognizer;
source: Apple docs (event handling guide for iOS)
I hope it helps!
Related
Resharper 2016.1 is notify unused public methods. Is there a way to disable this notifications global? I want only disable notification of unused public methods. Unused private methods should be notified nevertheless.
You'll need to turn off Solution Wide Analysis (ReSharper → Options → Code Inspection Settings). This will disable a number of inspections, but also disable marking public methods as being unused. Alternatively, you can use ReSharper's annotations, and add an attribute such as [PublicAPI] to the public methods that are used externally.
Private methods will remain marked as unused, because that only requires ReSharper to analyse a single class, rather than the whole solution.
I have resharper 2018.1. I don't know if this is version specific but in addition to #citizenmatt's answer you also need to make sure that "Show non-private type members when solution-wide analysis is off" is unchecked on the same options page. You could search for 'solution wide' in top left search of resharper options to quickly get on that page as per the image below.
In many occasions JavaFX needs to be customized with classes that extend existing ones. I tried this approach, for example to add a method to the NumberAxis class that would enable the label of the axis to be rotated.
But I got a "NumberAxis is declared final, can't be extended" compiler error. I wonder how people who extend classes do? Do they have access to the source code of javafx, modify it to make some classes not final, and recompile it? (sounds tricky! )
Making lots of classes final in the JavaFX framework was an intentional decision by the framework developers. To get a flavor of why it's done, see the Making Color Final proposal. That's just an example, there are other reasons. I think experience with subclassing in the Swing framework was that it caused errors and maintenance issues that the JavaFX designers wanted to avoid, so many things are made final.
There are other way to extend functionality than to directly subclass. Some alternatives for your rotation example:
aggregation: include the NumberAxis as a member of new class (e.g. NumberAxisWithRotatableText) which adds an accessor to get the underlying NumberAxis node and a method to perform the rotation (e.g. via a lookup as explained below).
composition: for example extend Pane, add a NumberAxis, disable the standard text drawing on the axis and add rotated labels yourself as needed.
css stylesheet: for example use a selector to lookup the text in the NumberAxis and the -fx-rotate attribute to rotate it.
node lookup: Use a node.lookup to get at the underlying text node, and apply the rotation via an API.
skin: All controls have a skin class attached them, replace the default skin class with a custom one.
subclass an alternate class: Subclass the abstract ValueAxis class rather than the final NumberAxis class.
Source code for JavaFX is available with build instructions. However, I don't recommend hacking a personal copy of the source code to remove final constructs unless you also submit it as an accepted patch to the JavaFX system so that you can be sure that your app won't break on a standard JavaFX install.
If you really think it is a good idea for a given class to be subclassable, then log a change request. Sometimes the JavaFX developers are overzealous and make stuff final which would be better not being final. NumberAxis perhaps falls into that category.
which is better to use, GreenDroid, ActionBarSherlock or the ActionBarCompat library?
i'm really having problems in making my app interface for this feature.
//use your custom xml view to show your actionbar
View actionBarView = getLayoutInflater().inflate(R.layout.action_bar_custom_view, null);
actionBar.setCustomView(actionBarView);
actionBar.setDisplayOptions(ActionBar.DISPLAY_SHOW_CUSTOM);
A simple thing is to do your own BUT if you really want it you could try actionbarsherlock, best is always a question about preference but I use sherlock. With your own you don't have some of the small quirks which comes with the bigger libraries.
I have used a gesture recognizer and the boundingRect for a given overlay to determine when a user taps on it. However I would now like to make a callout appear over the overlay region that the user taps, just like how it is done for annotations. Must I create the overlays as annotations in order to accomplish this? Thanks.
Overlays are also annotation objects if you wish.
From the Location Awareness Programming Guide:
The MKOverlay protocol conforms to the MKAnnotation protocol. As a result, all overlay objects are also annotation objects and can be treated as one or both in your code. If you opt to treat an overlay object as both, you are responsible for managing that object in two places. If you want to display both an overlay view and annotation view for it, you must implement both the mapView:viewForOverlay: and mapView:viewForAnnotation: methods in your application delegate. It also means that you must add and remove the object from both the overlays and annotations arrays of your map.
my question is about view controllers, delegates and all that in general. I feel perfectly comfortable with UIView, UIViewController, Delegates and Sources, like UITableView does for instance. It all makes sense.
Now I have implemented my first real custom view. No XIBs involved. It is an autocomplete address picker very much like in the Mail application. It creates those blue buttons whenever a recipient is added and has all the keyboard support like the original.
It subclasses UIView. There is no controller, no delegate, no source. I wonder if I should have either one of those? Or all, to make it a clean implementation.
I just cannot put my finger on the sense a view controller would make in my case. My custom view acts much like a control and a UIButton doesn't have a controller either.
What would it control in my view's case?
Some of my thoughts:
For the source: currently the view has a property "PossibleAutocompleteRecipients" which contains the addresses it autocompletes. I guess this would be a candidate for a "source" implementation. But is that really worth it? I would rather pass the controller to the view and put the property into the controller.
The selected recipients can be retrieved using a "SelectedRecipients" property. But views should not store values, I learned. Where would that go? Into the controller?
What about all the properties like "AllowSelectionFromAddressBook"? Again, if I compare with UIButton, these properties are similar to the button's "Secure" property. So they are allowed to be in the view.
The delegate could have methods like "WillAddRecipient", "WillRemoveRecipient" and so on and the user could return TRUE/FALSE to prevent the action from happening. Correct?
Should I maybe inherit from UIControl in the first place and not from UIView?
And last but not least: my custom view rotates perfectly if the device is rotated. Why don't all views? Why do some need a controller which implements ShouldAutoRotateToDeviceOrientation()?
Does it make sense what I wrote above? In the end I will provide the source on my website because it took me some time to implement it and I would like to share it as I have not found a similar implementaion of the Mail-App-like autocomplete control in MonoTouch.
I just want to learn and understand as much as possible and include it in the source.
René
I can answer part of your question.
I just cannot put my finger on the
sense a view controller would make in
my case
The ViewController is responsible for handling the View's state transitions (load, appear, rotate, etc) These transitions are used mainly when you use a navigation component (UINavigationViewController, UITabBarController). These components needs to received a ViewController that will handles the view's transitions.
For exemple, when you push a ViewController on a UINavigationViewController, it will cause the ViewDidLoad, ViewWillAppear, ViewDidAppear. It will also cause the ViewWillDisappear, ViewDidDisappear of the current ViewController.
So, if your application has only one portrait view, you don't need a ViewController. You can add your custom view as a subview of the main window.