This sounds good. But why would you pass null? Should it not be be the previous selection info (the current selection prior to changing it indirectly? This would be consistent with doing it "directly." -----Original Message----- From: Greg Brown [mailto:gkbr...@mac.com] Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2010 3:34 PM To: dev@pivot.apache.org Subject: [RFC] Selection change events
Hi all, I am thinking about making a change to how selection change events are fired and I would like to hear your feedback. Currently, selection change events are fired only when an explicit call has been made that affects the selection. For example, in ListView, calling either setSelectedRanges() or clearSelection() will fire this event. However, an operation that indirectly changes the selection state (such as adding or removing an item from the ListView's model data) does not trigger an event. This was originally done by design - selectedRangesChanged() includes the previous selection as an argument, and we didn't want to have to manually re-construct that every time the selection changed as a side effect of a model change: public void selectedRangesChanged(ListView listView, Sequence<Span> previousSelectedRanges); However, in practice, I have found this to be a bit challenging. More than once I have registered a selection change listener expecting to receive notification of all selection changes, forgetting that it is not designed that way. If I am getting tripped up by this, I'm guessing that other developers might be as well. So, I am proposing that components that maintain a selection state also fire selection change events when the selection changes indirectly. In this case, a null value would be passed for the previous selection. This will save the effort of re-constructing the previous selection info and will give the listener additional information about the nature of the change (i.e. null == indirect state change). Please let me know what you think. Thanks for your input, Greg
