XYplorer Beta Club

Suppose some will say this is a feature and not a bug, but as far as I'm concerned there is no point in having multiple tabs if the tree view doesnt act independantly for each tab.

e.g

tab 1 on
J:\Application_Data\XYplorer\
all other drives collapsed

now switch to tab 2 and select:
K:\Install\ACDSee\
I dont want anyother drives expanded, so collapse them so I have a clean view of this folder in this drive.

Now go back to tab 1 and b...ger me if K drive is expanded. I didnt do that

Now go back to tab 2 and dam it but J drive has expanded.

The whole idear of having multiple tabs is to provide separate views of the folder hierarchy for easy recognition and use, so I want each tab to act TOTALLY independant of any selction I may make in another tab.

I cant find any config options to turn off sync between tabs. Am I missing something?

Techworks wrote:I cant find any config options to turn off sync between tabs. Am I missing something?

At my place the AutoOptimizeTreeRadical tweak is apparently doing the trick.

thanks have made the tweak, and will see how it works

Cheers

Grant

Hmm...this tweak doesnt seem to make any difference at all!

Is it still set?

In order to apply a tweak XY shouldn't be open while editing the ini.
For further assistance search the forum...

Techworks wrote:Hmm...this tweak doesnt seem to make any difference at all!

What you are here saying would - since in your case you have different logical drives opened - correspond with what selukwe recently wrote in that other thread.

Question: Are your tabs on different panes or both on the same pane? Namely, since recently, I suspect that when branches are on different logical drives and at the same time their tabs are on different panes, this tweak does not help.

However, I intend to investigate that further when time permits, since I am also interested in this functionalty. (In any case, Don is since the end of the last week apparently either enjoying life, having a flue, or preparing something totally new, that will blow us all away... so we have some time to investigate this further. )

how can tabs not be on different panes? each tab defines a pane doesnt it??

I dont use duel panes, they dont really work for the same reason, you dont have a separate tree for each pane.

a "real" duel pane functionality would fix this issue, and make XPLorer hugely more functional. Tabs just dont offer the functionality of two independant tree/file views on the screen at the same time. I still revert to having xyplorer and explorer open sometimes to copy between locations.

Techworks wrote:how can tabs not be on different panes? each tab defines a pane doesnt it??

I dont use duel panes, they dont really work for the same reason, you dont have a separate tree for each pane.

Maybe we should define the meanings first...

XYplorer supports one tree for folders and two panes for file list.

These two panes can be either displayed at the same time ("dual mode"), or just one of them at the same time ("single mode"). In both of these cases, at a given moment only one of these two panes is active - it is referred to as an active pane and its number appears in a "Toggle Active Pane" tool button of a tool bar.

However, each of these two panes can contain many tabs (like a multi document editor or an integrated development environment, where you can have more documents opened at once and select the active one, which you want to work on, by clicking on its tab). At any given moment, there is only one tab active in a given pane - an active tab.

So, no, pane is not a tab. Panes are just two, while tabs are many per pane.

And then, there are many tabsets. A tabset is a group containing all the tabs of a given a pane. This group - a tabset - can be saved under a certain name and loaded again in the future, when necessary (with all the folder positions, sorting orders etc. etc., of course).

Here I was recently explaining why I am actually not missing two trees at all: Using many tabs in one pane with one tree

For the tree there are (about) 3 groups of users:
1) only wants one tree
2) wants 1 tree per pane
3) wants at least that each tab remembers it's tree
(There may be combinations of "number of trees to see" and "number of trees remembered".)

Each of the users is (more or less) convinced that his way to work is *the* way to work, and doesn't understand that other people like to work other ways.

Bad for those wanting a type that Don doesn't understand. He generally sees no need for a second tree. (At least this is how I understood him.) So I do not have much hope here...

Edit: but for sure: this is not a bug - this is a design decision.

Off-topic...

PeterH wrote:For the tree there are (about) 3 groups of users:
1) only wants one tree
2) wants 1 tree per pane
3) wants at least that each tab remembers it's tree
(There may be combinations of "number of trees to see" and "number of trees remembered".)

Suddenly I feel so very alone in the "Wants No Tree(s)" or rather "Never Uses Tree(s)" group.

TheQwerty wrote:Suddenly I feel so very alone in the "Wants No Tree(s)" or rather "Never Uses Tree(s)" group.

So it was YOU who chopped down all the trees on your property?
We were wondering why it looked so empty over at your place....

PeterH wrote:Each of the users is (more or less) convinced that his way to work is *the* way to work, and doesn't understand that other people like to work other ways.

Exactly! And that's what's caused some heated discussions here before.

Bad for those wanting a type that Don doesn't understand. He generally sees no need for a second tree. (At least this is how I understood him.) So I do not have much hope here...

Agreed! I guess it's somewhat based on what you're so used to having but then again, we left Win 3.1 style of file manager behind and moved on so sometimes people need to deal with other setups to move onwards.

TheQwerty wrote:Off-topic...

PeterH wrote:For the tree there are (about) 3 groups of users:
1) only wants one tree
2) wants 1 tree per pane
3) wants at least that each tab remembers it's tree
(There may be combinations of "number of trees to see" and "number of trees remembered".)

Suddenly I feel so very alone in the "Wants No Tree(s)" or rather "Never Uses Tree(s)" group.

I'm so sorry - I didn't think of that

So please change 3 to 4, and add to my table:
0) does want no tree at all

A bit unfair: group 2) and 3) suffer from Don's no-interest, while group 0) is able to hide the tree

But what should I say? That's life: hard but unfair

ok I did not realise there are two "panes" with multiple tabs in each. I'll have a play with this concept.

Borut wrote:Maybe we should define the meanings first...

Very good and clear description of panes/tabs/tree! Just wanted to say that as some people seem to confuse some parts of those.

Don,

I bet you haven't followed this thread closely, since it is so long. I'll make it short:

I have made some tests and also spotted that in everyday work...

When AutoOptimizeTreeRadical=1 tweak is used, the optimisation seems not to be radical enough if tabs are positioned on different panes, namely:

If tabs on different panes are positioned in relatively near directories (but completely different branches, of course), both branches seem to stay expanded in the tree after the active pane changes. Not so if the two tabs are positioned on the same pane - then auto optimisation seems to really be radical.

Although I do not encounter such a situation often, it is annoying - when folder structure of both branches is the same one can easily think of being positioned in a directory in which he is actually not positioned.

Could you please look into this and convince the tree (perhaps as an option) to radically optimise itself in this situation too?

Thank you,
Borut
P.S. Also, I think there was a suggestion that AutoOptimizeTreeRadical could be advanced to the settings GUI level. I think that this, in combination with the upper enhancement, might help a certain type of users to forget their wishes about two trees.