This thread looks to be a little on the old side and therefore may no longer be relevant. Please see if there is a newer thread on the subject and ensure you're using the most recent build of any software if your question regards a particular product.
This thread has been locked and is no longer accepting new posts, if you have a question regarding this topic please email us at support@mindscape.co.nz
|
As I click through each entity via Designer window, the selected entity in LightSpeed Model window is not updated, and vice versa. |
|
|
The selection being "out of sync" is expected, as these two selections are independent. If the actual data displayed is out of sync, that may be a bug (though it may be a Visual Studio bug, as the model tree is provided by Visual Studio). |
|
|
If you don't mind me asking, why is the selection independent between the two window when they are just different way to look/explore the model - graph view vs tree view? Am I missing something here? |
|
|
Various reasons. One of the considerations is that the selection in the model explorer may not be represented on the designer (e.g. external class references), or not represented in a selectable way (e.g. validations). Another is how to show selection given that the tree is not normally fully open (e.g. if you select a property in the designer, should the tree expand to make that property visible? If not, how would the selection be shown in the tree?). But ultimately I admit it's that the tree (as mentioned) is actually realised by Visual Studio rather than being hand-coded, and that's the way VS chose to do things. (Unsynced selection is after all the norm in VS. For example, if you have two windows (or a splitter) open on the same source file, you can make different selections in those two windows. When I switch between files in the editor, that doesn't change the selection in Solution Explorer.) We don't feel strongly enough to spend time overriding the way Visual Studio does things; we'd look at it only if customers clearly felt that there was a major issue here. |
|
|
Thanks Ivan, for explaining the design decision, it's not a major issue at all. I'd rather you guys to spend time on the actual features and documentation than the designer :-) |
|