R MDI vs SDI: A Practical Guide to Using Multiple or Single Document Interfaces in R

The current version of R is version 2.5.1. R and associated software anddocumentation are available at the CRAN (Comprehensive R Archive Network) web site,and at many 'mirror'sites around the world. The link to the R for Windows installer provided here is to a CRAN mirror in North America, if you are not in North America (or evenif you are), you may prefer to use a mirror closer to you. Further informationabout R is available on the R homepage.

r mdi vs sdi

Download Zip

CRAN contains pre-compiled 'binary' distributions of R for Windows, Macintosh,and some Linux systems, and of contributed packages for Windows and Macintoshsystems. There are also 'source' files for R and for contributed packages;these need to be compiled before they can be used, and are for users whowant to run R on a system for which precompiled binaries are not available,or who want to make changes to R or to a package; building R and packageson typical Linux and and Unix systems is straightforward. Windows binarypackages are distributed in .zipfiles.

SDI applications allow only one open document frame window at a time. MDI applications allow multiple document frame windows to be open in the same instance of an application. An MDI application has a window within which multiple MDI child windows, which are frame windows themselves, can be opened, each containing a separate document. In some applications, the child windows can be of different types, such as chart windows and spreadsheet windows. In that case, the menu bar can change as MDI child windows of different types are activated.

I installed RStudio version Version 0.98.1091 (os: Windows 7) with MDI option. Now I want to change it to the SDI. But I can't find the option anywhere. It should be under edit menu (according to google search) but not any more. I guess new version put it somewhere else.

I am considering porting a windows application to a web application for one of my clients. The windows application is an MDI app (multiple forms open at once), but obviously the web app would be much more "linear" in the workflow, i.e. one window open at once (for the most part).

Which is better? History navigation works best when users work superficially on many pages/forms, skimming for content, ignoring most of it, and only occasionally providing any input other than navigation. Window navigation works best when users work intensively on a few forms, providing substantial input (e.g., more than 30 seconds of work). In history navigation, forms effectively close themselves by simply being neglected, which is fine for superficial work, but a real drag if it means losing track of a lot of unsaved work.

Exiting or logging out leaves no ambiguous pages apparently available for access. Log out with history navigation and the user can still back into the pages in the history chain, which is confusing at the least.

I believe that MDI was invented in the days where computer resources were scarce, and it was more beneficient to adapt your program to be able to handle different documents, instead of running different executables.

Multiple document interfaces are suitable for applications where more than one document can be edited at the same time. It is often beneficial to allow a user to view/edit two or more documents at the same time than just one at a time. Imagine an estate agent who can view more than one property at the same time, or viewing one without having to close the details of another. This allows an approach to document management more akin to how they might work with paper on a desk.

In a web application you might be able to provide dialog-styled documents if you wish to keep all the content in just one page, or you can open new windows with a document in each - though the latter will require discipline on the users part because your application loses control of those windows once they're opened. As an alternative, you could offer something like an accordion control to quickly open/close documents with them all in the one page. I think the choice of technique will be largely down to the size of your documents and the control you want over when they are visible and or closed (removed).

I'm looking at a similar problem at the moment. Our application is a thin client application. It isn't necessarily the user's focus most of the time (we provide status and function while another application is being used as the primary tool).

We are considering building our application so we can offer the user two views. A single window view and a multiple window view. In the latter, the user can size and position the pieces of our application as they see fit.

In a more traditional web application, you may find the same logic to be useful. Reference tables/graphs or status panes could be useful pop-ups that could be structured around the screen. This might also work if your application is very complicated and users might want to control their view. However, in this case, I'd be more prone to consider looking at a better, smarter screen layout that has some amount of user controlled configuration. Multiple windows, can become annoying as they impact the multiple application paradigm. For example, under windows, alt-tabbing between applications not yields multiple stop points that are your application. Same affect on the taskbar.

For years, if you wanted to incorporate a multi-document UI in an app, your best option was to use the DevExpress XtraTabbedMdiManager component. This UI control allowed you to create floating or docked "documents," and merge parent/child BarManager or Ribbon menus.

If you want your apps to mimic the UI capabilities of modern web browsers, simply use the DevExpress Tab Form. With our WinForms Tab Form, users can split tabs into separate windows and merge them together as needed.

Hm, that setup sounds interesting. If you don't mind, could you share a screenshot? I'm sure other readers would love to see what that custom toolbar at the bottom of the app looks like. At least I am very intrigued :)

DevExpress engineers feature-complete Presentation Controls, IDE Productivity Tools, Business Application Frameworks, and Reporting Systems for Visual Studio, Delphi, HTML5 or iOS & Android development. Whether using WPF, ASP.NET, WinForms, HTML5 or Windows 10, DevExpress tools help you build and deliver your best in the shortest time possible.

Mating has profound effects on the physiology and behavior of female insects, and in honey bee (Apis mellifera) queens, these changes are permanent. Queens mate with multiple males during a brief period in their early adult lives, and shortly thereafter they initiate egg-laying. Furthermore, the pheromone profiles of mated queens differ from those of virgins, and these pheromones regulate many different aspects of worker behavior and colony organization. While it is clear that mating causes dramatic changes in queens, it is unclear if mating number has more subtle effects on queen physiology or queen-worker interactions; indeed, the effect of multiple matings on female insect physiology has not been broadly addressed. Because it is not possible to control the natural mating behavior of queens, we used instrumental insemination and compared queens inseminated with semen from either a single drone (single-drone inseminated, or SDI) or 10 drones (multi-drone inseminated, or MDI). We used observation hives to monitor attraction of workers to SDI or MDI queens in colonies, and cage studies to monitor the attraction of workers to virgin, SDI, and MDI queen mandibular gland extracts (the main source of queen pheromone). The chemical profiles of the mandibular glands of virgin, SDI, and MDI queens were characterized using GC-MS. Finally, we measured brain expression levels in SDI and MDI queens of a gene associated with phototaxis in worker honey bees (Amfor). Here, we demonstrate for the first time that insemination quantity significantly affects mandibular gland chemical profiles, queen-worker interactions, and brain gene expression. Further research will be necessary to elucidate the mechanistic bases for these effects: insemination volume, sperm and seminal protein quantity, and genetic diversity of the sperm may all be important factors contributing to this profound change in honey bee queen physiology, queen behavior, and social interactions in the colony.

Copyright: 2007 Richard et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Although it is clear that mandibular gland pheromone profiles differ dramatically between young virgins and naturally mated, laying queens, the short-term effects of mating on pheromone profiles are largely unknown. Plettner et al. [14] compared the quantities of the QMP components between 6-day-old virgins and 1-year-old mated laying queens, and found that mated queens had significantly higher levels of 9-ODA, 9-HDA, HOB and HVA than did virgins. However, a similar study by Slessor et al [13], which compared 6- and 12-day-old virgins with mated queens that had been laying for 1 day, 5 weeks, or 2 years, found different results. In that study, levels of 9-ODA were not significantly different between any of these groups, 9-HDA levels were significantly higher in mated versus virgin queens, HOB levels were significantly higher in the 2-year-old mated queens than in both the virgins and 1-day laying queens and intermediate in the 5-week laying queens, and HVA levels were significantly higher in the 2-year mated queens compared to all other groups. Thus, pheromone profiles are strongly affected by mating, age (or perhaps time since mating), and potentially by egg-laying. Finally, Apsegaite and Skirkevicius [31] found slight differences in the quantity of 9-ODA between different strains of honey bees, suggesting that genotypic differences might also alter pheromone profiles. 2ff7e9595c