I would like to know if there's a possibility to put fields into a readonly state? I have found some method called "SetLocked", but that one only locks position and size as far as I see that correctly.
Readonly and locked status are different.
What you're looking for is the set method for IsLockedContent().
Just forwarded your request to developers.
It seems you've a long list of fields editing features.
May I suggest to provide us a full features you're looking for?
We will evaluate them and check what is available, what is not available and what we could introduce as per your request/suggestion?
thanks for the quick update! The only thing I was missing is that the view takes care of the fields being read-only but I solved this already for my own. The only thing I am still facing:
I try to turn the background of the text annotation to White using SetFillColor(0xffffffff). First - this does not work and Second - whenever I do Getfillcolor, I always get zero (0). Same goes for SetStroke when trying to realize required fields. Furthermore, the result of the set methods is always false.
By the way, is there something called "IsRequired"? I think that is the last feature we need to have then, so this is basically the list you requested .
We're evaluating to introduce some new methods to modify field text annotation style (size, font, color).
We think we will release a new 3.4.x stable release this week or at least during the very first days of new week.
New methods could be in new coming 3.5 that's in beta stage.
thanks in advance! Do you have an idea about a rough estimations about the new methods?`When will there be a new beta and which methods will be in there? We will have a short discussion tomorrow morning (Wednesday) about how far we got using your framework and I'd like to have some info there about this . In order to buy your framework, we will definitely need these features still:
- Change the background color of a field
- Change the border color of a field
- Change the border thickness of a field
- Check if the field is required (No setter required)
It would be nice of you if you could give us a short heads-up about this so that we can take a decision about whether continue on this thoroughly.