iOSTable Jump Shortcut

Not sure what it’s called, but in the Contacts app the table shows, on the very far right side an alphabetical list to jump directly to that section in the table.

a) What is this feature called?
b) Is it possible in Xojo?

Hi Bob

That feature is called an index.
It is possible through declares.

@Antonio Rinaldi has a very handy iOSTableView extension set of classes that enable this:

Perfect. Thanks!

Well, was perfect until I purchased and found out that it’s encrypted source code with no option to get the unencrypted version.

To be clear, nowhere on Antonio’s site, or the Xojo web store entry, does it say the source comes encrypted with no option to get the unencrypted version. I am disappointed that a bunch of iOS declares are encrypted. I understand he spent the time to create the Xojo version but I can’t use the encrypted version. Period. End of story. No amount of haggling and promising of support can change that part of the equation. Frankly, I’ve been burned by encrypted source in the past when the developer disappears.

From my own experience selling source code it makes zero sense to sell encrypted source code. From a support standpoint it’s a nightmare because what is a simple thing to look in the source code turns into a multiple email transaction with unhappy people all the way around. I have a question, send it in via email. IF I get a timely response (selling worldwide that’s no guarantee) it might not be exactly the information I’m looking for. If not, it’s another round of questions that if I just had the source would have been 30 seconds of work.

End of rant.

Antonio’s site clearly states: “You can freely use this class in the IDE for test and debugging purposes”.

To be clear Bob, Antonio’s site offers a direct download as a trial. Which I took as an opportunity to try out myself recently.

It was obvious right off that the projects had encrypted content. I take it from your ranting that you didn’t take that opportunity to see for yourself? If you had, this would have been the point to maybe send Antonio an email to kindly ask the question about a possible unencrypted version?

So, I don’t think It’s fair to rant like this when it’s your own fault for not giving the trial a test run first, and potentially ask some follow-up questions of the vendor, before buying.

As for criticizing Antionio’s business model publically to his peers & colleagues, well… how would you feel if we did that to you?

A business model is a business model, is a business model… as in take-it-or-leave-it.

Have a nice evening :slight_smile:

Scott I think you’re making comments while missing out on quite a big portion of the picture.

If that’s the case, and this “big portion” is not obviously included for me or others to see, how does Bob’s ranting differ from what I see as unfair treatment of another member of the community?

Trust me, 17 years of this community, I’ve received my share of criticism. Some of it well deserved. However, “You can freely use this class in the IDE for test and debugging purposes” doesn’t tell me what the final form it’s going to shipped in. Of course I expect Demo source code to be encrypted.

Who’s to say I didn’t try it before I bought it? I don’t buy source just for the hell of it. And you don’t know the sequence I went through to get to this point.

What a lot of developers do is offer a full-source version. I will always pay a premium for that because that’s a must in my business. It was not offered to me even after several emails.

So I’m still looking for a solution that I can use.

Scott… any Trial version would be expected to be encrypted (and I’m sure Bob had no problem with that).
This is how my gPDF and CPI controls are demo’d

If the trial version were NOT encrypted then there is no incentive to “buy it” (other that its the ‘right thing’ to do)
But I agree with Bob, the “commerical” version should be either NOT Encrypted, or there should be a proper disclaimer indicating the status of the product you are paying for.

Thank you Bob, for adding some context.

But respectfully, by saying “Who’s to say I didn’t try it before I bought it?” and the source “was not offered to me even after several emails” - you’re implying that you did do your due-diligence, before purchase. Which sorta contradicts what you said earlier:

Regardless Bob, just to highlight my postings were about supporting some clarity and fair treatment in the community - rather than just appearing to be someone who likes to stir up trouble, how about a peace offering?

If Antonio will allow transferring your iOSTableViewExtended license to me, I’ll gladly pay you in full what you paid for the license.

I was honestly considering purchasing anyway. Because I’m a Xojo newbie and the first iOS project I’m working on is going to be a freebie anyway, so I find the proposition of a closed-source library not a big deal. It’ll be a learning experience for me.

So the offer is:

1.) - You contact Antonio at and get his permission to transfer the license to me, under whatever terms or instructions he requires.

2.) - Send me a copy of his email approving this, and how much I owe you, with payment instructions.

3.) - I’ll send you the money.

4.) - Upon receipt of my payment, you send me the license.

How about it?

If you’re interested, we can continue this via private conversation, or I can contact you through your website. Let me know.

With respect @Dave S

Please show me where it is written, that when a non-free software product doesn’t explicitly state a source-code option is available - that a disclaimer or “status” statement MUST be provided?

Since joining the community, I’ve been collecting links to all sorts of 3rd party Xojo vendors. It’s great to see lots of options. Some of these vendors offer a source-code option up front, others don’t. Who am I to question it?

Everybody has their business model. Either that business model is agreeable given your circumstances, or you keep shopping.

Scott… the word MUST and the word SHOULD (as I used) have very different meanings.
As to “who are you to question it?”… a developer who should be concerned with the content of a product???
Yes, Everybody has their own business model… but in this case this is information that SHOULD be supplied.
because as in this case, Bob was not aware of the situation, otherwise he probably would have “kept shopping”

I, like Bob, do not buy add-ons that do not include the source code… and this includes any/all plug-ins, as others on this forum are well aware.

So, perhaps the take-away for those of us where this is a concerning issue… Don’t purchase a license to any add-on, unless

  • you don’t care if it is encrypted
  • the sellers website is quite clear that the code provided IS NOT encrypted
  • you ask the developer, to be specific as to the status of the code

The add-ons that I provide, are very explicit that 100% of the source code is provided. In the past I tried selling encrypted classes, but ran across the above issues. Not to mention in a few cases, some of my customers have sent back either minor fixes they found, or entire new features…

Now… with respect… there is nothing more to be said.

Well, we could argue semantics when “should” is being used in both statements of the same sentence?

But I digress. My bad.

I apologize @Dave S, unreservedly for misinterpreting the characterization of your statements and ask unconditionally your forgiveness.

@Bob Keeney, my offer still stands.

Dave & Bob, sincerely, I hope to do business with you both at some point in the future.