For a little context, here's where this started: http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit-incubator/issues/detail?id=174
And the sister thread that Daniel opened: http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors/browse_thread/thread/7c568f6c57ab8d73 On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 2:08 PM, Ray Ryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 10:52 AM, Emily Crutcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Thought this conversation should be made public... >> >> Emily mentioned in her review comment for r1180 that the >> DateBox.getTextBox() JavaDoc >> needs a warning about calling setText() directly on the TextBox. Aren't >> there going >> to be many other potentially dangerous things one could do with that >> TextBox >> reference? Adding to another container or calling removeFromParent() seem >> ripe for >> abuse. Also, getTextBox().getParent() effectively exposes the entire DOM >> innards of >> the Composite, doesn't it? Composite.getWidget() is protected for a >> reason, I would >> think. >> >> >> I think the getTextBox() change was buried in an event-based thread. The >> question was to add methods like >> addTextBoxClickHandler/addTextBoxChangeHandler/addTextBoxFocusHandler or >> to have a public getTextBox() method that the user could then add handlers >> to. >> >> The current decision was that since a user could already pass a text box >> into a suggest box, there were enough benefits to using the simpler coding >> model. However, it is inherently less safe as it allows users to do stupid >> things. It also, as we see here, establishes a precedent that may or may not >> be the one we want to establish. >> >> >> So, for SuggestBox, and, by implication, DateBox and any other *Box >> widget we create, do we want to delegate to all the text box methods we >> support or do we want a getTextBox method? > > Adding getTextBox() only changes things by giving them access to the one > that we create if they don't provide their own, right? And it means that we > have no option to change the implementation in to one that doesn't use a > text box--right now we're "allowed to" if they use the default constructor. > > I suppose I just said that I vote against the accessor. What problem is > being solved by adding it? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> "There are only 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand >> binary, and those who don't" >> >> > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
