XPTaskBarBoxs have a property called "PreferedHeight". I'm not sure I understand what it means by "Prefered" or why the Size is not used. Is this to support some sort of dynamic resizing and PreferedHeight is a minimum height?
I am leaning heavily on the XPTaskBar (hence all the bug reports and nits). This has me wishing for some extra features that go beyond what the WindowsXP taskbar does (on which this is modeled). I'd love to have a bool property that says the box is resizeable and it automatically puts a splitter beneath the XPTaskBarBox. That way one could resize them easily. Right now there is no way to do this, that I'm aware of because the boxes are not added by drag-n-drop, but rather by the UI designer (Add Task Box). Would such a thing be possible?
BTW, great work on all these controls. They are top-notch and the support is outstanding!
The PreferredHeight is used internally to let the parent task bar know it's preferred height, hence protected.
I cannot think of an easy way to add a splitter to the bottom of the box, as the task bar currently is made to accept only xptaskbarboxes as children.
I will make this a feature request for a future release.
DWDavid WhatleyApril 10, 2003 10:38 PM UTC
> The PreferredHeight is used internally to let the parent task bar know it's preferred height, hence protected.
What did you not just use size? I'm still confused.
Ramesh PraveenApril 11, 2003 05:54 PM UTC
We don't use Size because the Width of the child boxes will always be the width of the parent taskbar (with some margin).
AdministratorAugust 20, 2010 08:03 PM UTC
I would love this feature as well - the ability to manually resize an XPTaskBarBox by allowing the user to "grab" a splitter or handle at the bottom and drag it down. Then, controls within the XPTaskBarBox that are docked or anchored could also grow accordingly.
Lingaraj SAugust 24, 2010 11:22 AM UTC
Thank you for your interest in Sycnfusion products.
By default, XPTaskBar does not have support to resize the XPTaskBoxBox.
Please let me know if you have any other concerns.
Regards, Lingaraj S.
AdministratorAugust 25, 2010 10:55 PM UTC
It would be a great enhancement to have!
Lingaraj SAugust 30, 2010 10:48 AM UTC
Thank you for the update.
Regret for the inconvenience with current architecture it is not possible to implement this feature.