Using 2022 r1 - I’m hoping that I’m missing something obvious here, but is there no way to just set a property for the background color of the header of a weblistbox? The only thing I can really find is referencing web styles. That seems a very confabulated way to do things. It seems like it would just be a property of the control. I really hope I’m missing something obvious. TIA.
There is no property yet, you need to use CSS or JS to change the background color.
Xojo has a new developer for Web, I’m sure he will bring many features to future releases.
In the meantime, this may help:
1 Like
Thank you. I did see that post too. I was hoping for a more straight forward solution. I thought any Xojo criticisms I found would be more edge cases but I’ve found two annoying quirks in light usage. Kind of takes the rapid out of RAD, at least for web apps.
What you needed can be implemented with some CSS, which is really hard to not having to deal with when doing Web development.
What other quircks have you found?
I’ not being apologetic for Xojo, it of course can use a lot of improvement. Just wondering what are the things you have found annoying and what are the things that could be show stoppers for you.
The most annoying things are features that worked in Web 1.0 that were either left out of Web 2.0 or were broken and have remained so for the past two years. I’ve had many issues specifically around the WebListBox, but every control has had issues. This has made it difficult to move existing Web 1.0 apps to Web 2.0 and maintain usability because of user expectations or functionality that just can’t easily be reproduced.
Complaining to complain isn’t helpful, but pushing hard to get things fixed when bugs are encountered is to be expected. My biggest gripe around having to learn and rely on CSS now is that is not a paradigm I expected or wanted. That type of thing was masked in Web 1.0 and now I’m constantly distracted from writing functional code because I have to waste time on figuring out how to recreate UI elements that were easily accomplished in a few clicks in Web 1.0. Some CSS only works in the App Headers and so it’s global when what is really wanted is more styling to be more granular on a control by control basis.
The other thing I mentioned in another post is the creation of classes, methods, etc. you cannot just type a definition. You have to click insert, choose the object, add the parameters. I can work around it but it does slow down when you can type fast. The fact that they illustrate a text based creation in the documentation of a concept and then have to put a disclaimer to say it doesn’t work that way in Xojo is a bit disconcerting.
The deal I discovered with the header is much more annoying. One of the biggest selling points for me with Xojo is the ease of creating an interface for the web. I was hoping it would be like more like Visual Studio desktop application, and it is, but these little quirks add up. I will keep plugging away but after awhile these unexpected quirks it just makes more sense to use Visual Studio and/or Php, which are free. If I was more concerned for Apple development it would be different. I run into similar problems with LiveCode. I paid them for years and the quirks just added up. For the record, I’d say Xojo is much better than LiveCode.
In “regular” web development it is good practice to have a separate file for the CSS, you add properties and/or behaviour to elements in the app by adding or removing classes. Would I like it better if I could do something like was done in Web 1.0? Yes. Is it extremely dificult to do it like every other dev enviroment requires it to be done? Not really.
We all want a better Web 2.0 and I hope Xojo keeps imprvovig it so we can have the level of abstraction we would love to have.
It’s been like this since forever. I was put off by it at first and now I find I actually like it better like this YMMV 
It is what it is. I keep at it for now. Just adds a bit more work.