On Wed, 14 Sep 2022 15:26:03 GMT, Andy Goryachev <ango...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> Good question. >> >> We could deprecate the old policy, although leaving it as is also leaves all >> its issues in place (see JDK-8292810). There is a subtle behavioral >> difference between the old CONSTRAINED_RESIZE_POLICY and >> CONSTRAINED_RESIZE_POLICY_SUBSEQUENT_COLUMNS that people might notice and >> may not like. The difference is that the old policy works similar to >> CONSTRAINED_RESIZE_POLICY_LAST_COLUMN until the last column cannot be >> resized, then it resizes one before it. >> >> Another option is that we could add another policy which will work exactly >> (minus bugs) as the old one. What do you think? > > Try tests/manual/controls/ATableViewResizeTester.java to see the behavior. > We could deprecate the old policy, although leaving it as is also leaves all > its issues in place (see JDK-8292810). There is a subtle behavioral > difference between the old CONSTRAINED_RESIZE_POLICY and > CONSTRAINED_RESIZE_POLICY_SUBSEQUENT_COLUMNS that people might notice and may > not like. The difference is that the old policy works similar to > CONSTRAINED_RESIZE_POLICY_LAST_COLUMN until the last column cannot be > resized, then it resizes one before it. > > Another option is that we could add another policy which will work exactly > (minus bugs) as the old one. What do you think? I like that all new constrained resize policies have a more describing name and I think we should stick to it, therefore I'm in favor of deprecating the 'old', more generic named resize policy. Regarding the behaviour change, we may want to implement a constrained resize policy which does the same as the old one, but without bugs and a name similar to the other ones. ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jfx/pull/897
