Adam Kendall

I'd like to confirm that the priority message for pattrstorage can be set for a subpatch/patcher object but *not* for a bpatcher object.

I'll post an example if my question isn't clear.

confirming-behavior-of-pattrstorage-priority-and-bpatcher

I would like to ask, if this will be changed to the better in the not so far future???

If we could build ui-patchers modularized with bpatchers and make use of the irreplaceable priority message the same time inside of these bpatchers!

hi, 
I would like to ask, if this will be changed to the better in the not so far future???
If we could build ui-patchers modularized with bpatchers and make use of the irreplaceable priority message the same time inside of these bpatchers!
this would be something!
all the best,
johannes


maybe post an example. i'm not sure i understand the problem enough to investigate.

I just tested this using the most recent version on my machine, and it works fine, so I think that this is an old bug report that was resolved at some point. If not, it will be resolved in the next release. :)

will it be possible to change the sequence of the loading related to nested bpatchers with the priority message?

if the bpatcher C at level "-3" (three levels "down" - bpatcher inside a bpatcher inside a bpatcher) has a priority of -5,

will it values be loaded earlier than the values of bpatcher A at level "-1" with the priority of -2?

will the bpatcher have to have a priority itself, or is it more important that the number boxes etc inside the bpatcher will have a appropriate priority.

very very nice!
will it be possible to change the sequence of the loading related to nested bpatchers with the priority message?
if the bpatcher C at level "-3" (three levels "down" - bpatcher inside a bpatcher inside a bpatcher) has a priority of -5,
will it values be loaded earlier than the values of bpatcher A at level "-1" with the priority of -2?
will the bpatcher have to have a priority itself, or is it more important that the number boxes etc inside the bpatcher will have a appropriate priority.
cheers,
johannes s.


No. Ordering is still handled from the 'top down'. If you have a patch with two bpatchers (A and B), each containing 2 bpatchers (Aa, Ab, Ba, Bb):

First B will be searched (it has the lowest priority at level 0). Bb will be restored, then Ba. Now we go to A, Ab will be restored, then Aa.

Quote: sone wrote on Tue, 03 February 2009 11:02

----------------------------------------------------

> will it be possible to change the sequence of the loading related to nested bpatchers with the priority message?

> if the bpatcher C at level "-3" (three levels "down" - bpatcher inside a bpatcher inside a bpatcher) has a priority of -5,

> will it values be loaded earlier than the values of bpatcher A at level "-1" with the priority of -2?

> will the bpatcher have to have a priority itself, or is it more important that the number boxes etc inside the bpatcher will have a appropriate priority.

A priority    5
  Aa priority 4
  Ab priority 3

B priority    2
  Ba priority 1
  Bb priority 0

Quote: sone wrote on Tue, 03 February 2009 11:02
----------------------------------------------------
> very very nice!
> will it be possible to change the sequence of the loading related to nested bpatchers with the priority message?
> if the bpatcher C at level "-3" (three levels "down" - bpatcher inside a bpatcher inside a bpatcher) has a priority of -5,
> will it values be loaded earlier than the values of bpatcher A at level "-1" with the priority of -2?
> will the bpatcher have to have a priority itself, or is it more important that the number boxes etc inside the bpatcher will have a appropriate priority.
> cheers,
> johannes s.
----------------------------------------------------


Confirming behavior of pattrstorage, priority, and bpatcher