I'll take the rest of the review this afternoon. On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 11:06 AM, <j...@google.com> wrote:
> BTW, I only reviewed the Number/Date classes, not everything. > > > > 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#newcode34 > user/src/com/google/gwt/user/client/ui/NumberLabel.java:34: } > On 2010/11/11 18:36:23, tbroyer wrote: > >> 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? >> > > I don't care much, as long as they are consistent. > > > 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) >> > > UiBinder can't supply arbitrary values, such as a DateTimeFormat, can > it? > > > http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1099801/show > > -- > http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors > -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
