[Bf-funboard] Object manager update

[Thorsten Wilms]

On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 09:30:03AM -0500, Karim Nassar wrote:
> >I think what is important is making locked objects active... (so if click 
> >on
> >a locked object, perhaps all that happens is that it just becomes active,
> >but it isn't selected [since I think the only reason to select things is to
> >move, rotate, make it a child, etc - editing type stuff]). So I think
> >"locked" is probably the best term (rather than editable/non-editable).
> 
> Um... I really disagree here. Locked should mean completely locked. An 
> object that is locked cannot be altered in any way. No moving, scaling, 
> rotating. No assigning materials, or decimating, or copying. 

Up to this point how I would define locked for sure.

> Certainly 
> no selecting or making it active!

That's the part I'm not sure about.

> The reason to have a Lock function is so that in highly complex modeling 
> tasks, one can lock-down objects that one doesn't want to affect while 
> still being able to see them.
> 
> A locked object should not react to the cursor/clicking at all. How will 
> it help to lock something (so that one can manipulate surrounding 
> objects) if it becomes active when it's clicked? The Blender UI should 
> completely ignore locked objects. That's the way Locking works in every 
> other app I've used.

Well, it might make sense to be able to parent things to locked objects. 
The most important reason for selecting locked objects would be for 
unlocking them (to allow it not only in the manager).
On the other hand objects that are selected, but do not respond to 
G, R, S and other operations are not nice. So I think both makes 
sense.
But I lean towards locked also meaning not selectable in 3d views.


---
Thorsten