I say validate should also not change state, otherwise computeBounds would be better name for method. Consider validate in input validation.
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 8:57 PM, Scott Palmer <swpal...@gmail.com> wrote: > Since CSS is implicitly tied to layout, validateLayout() seems to be > enough. > > I don't like "verify" or "check" - To me, these imply a method that is > doing checks only and not changing state. A "verify" method would be > something that returns a boolean or throws an exception. > > Scott > > > On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 9:07 AM, Ali Ebrahimi <ali.ebrahimi1...@gmail.com > >wrote: > > > just my suggestions: > > validation is a side effect free concept. but your validate contains css > & > > layout processing for Node, so validate is very poor name in this case. > > May be better use computeBounds instead. > > But alternates for validate( if method is a side effect free): > > verify() > > verfifyNode() > > verifyBounds() > > checkNode() > > checkBounds() > > > > best Regards > > Ali Ebrahimi > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 4:50 PM, Martin Sladecek > > <martin.slade...@oracle.com>wrote: > > > > > The plan is to have a final validate() method. > > > Anyway, does anybody have a better suggestion? The validate should do > > both > > > CSS and layout and I would like to avoid method name that's too > > descriptive > > > (like validateLayoutAndCSS()) if possible. > > > I think the most important thing about the method is that it validates > > the > > > bounds/metrics of the Node, so maybe validateBounds() ? > > > > > > -Martin > > > > > > > > > On 07/08/2013 01:52 PM, Anthony Petrov wrote: > > > > > >> +1 > > >> > > >> The validate()/isValid() in AWT/Swing are often overridden by user > apps > > >> for tasks that have nothing to do with the layout. And this causes a > > lot of > > >> problems. > > >> > > >> -- > > >> best regards, > > >> Anthony > > >> > > >> On 07/08/13 15:20, Pavel Safrata wrote: > > >> > > >>> Hello, > > >>> one more discussion topic: perhaps the "validate" name is too > general? > > >>> Maybe we can come up with more descriptive name? There are all kinds > of > > >>> nodes and sometimes this name can be misleading (not ringing the > layout > > >>> bell at all). For example TextField.validate() may look like > validating > > >>> the input. Also I wouldn't be surprised if users run into problems > with > > >>> custom nodes having their "validate" methods for different purposes. > > >>> Pavel > > >>> > > >>> On 3.7.2013 14:33, Martin Sladecek wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> Hi, > > >>>> > > >>>> JIRA: https://javafx-jira.kenai.com/**browse/RT-31133< > > https://javafx-jira.kenai.com/browse/RT-31133> > > >>>> > > >>>> I propose a single method "public final void validate()" to be added > > >>>> to Node class. The validate method would ensure that the metrics > > >>>> (layout bounds) of the Node are valid with regards to the current > > >>>> scenegraph (CSS & layout). > > >>>> > > >>>> Together with this change, Parent.layout() will be deprecated. > > >>>> > > >>>> In my current implementation, validate() method works only if the > Node > > >>>> is in a Scene. To make it work without a Scene, we'd need to do do > > >>>> some small adjustments to CSS (doesn't work with getScene() == > null). > > >>>> But I'm not sure if such feature would be useful. > > >>>> > > >>>> Regards, > > >>>> -Martin > > >>>> > > >>> > > >>> > > > > > >
