Thanks for the quick feedback!
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1099801/diff/1/8 File user/src/com/google/gwt/user/client/ui/NumberLabel.java (right): http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1099801/diff/1/8#newcode22 user/src/com/google/gwt/user/client/ui/NumberLabel.java:22: * A ValueLabel that uses {...@link DoubleRenderer}. On 2010/11/11 15:35:57, jat wrote:
Should be NumberFormatRenderer, right?
Done. http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1099801/diff/1/8#newcode34 user/src/com/google/gwt/user/client/ui/NumberLabel.java:34: } On 2010/11/11 15:35:57, jat wrote:
For consistency with DateLabel, shouldn't their be a constructor that
takes a
NumberFormatRenderer?
Given that if you have a Renderer you can directly use ValueLabel, I think I'd rather remove the ctor from DateLabel. What do you think? Actually, maybe even DateLabel and NumberLabel aren't needed, as in many cases I guess you'll pass a formatter, which means you'll probably use @UiField(provided=true) or a @UiFactory with UiBinder (which probably defeats the idea of those datatype-specialized widgets) Or maybe they rather should only have a no-arg ctor, or a @UiConstructor? And/or should the renderer be settable in ValueLabel (which would allow using setters in NumberLabel and DateLabel to easily customize the format in UiBinder without mandating a format, as @UiConstructor would; i.e. setPredefinedFormat(PredefinedFormat) and setCustomFormat(String) in DateLabel, and crafting an enum for a similar use in NumberLabel) http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1099801/show -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
