I think minimumWidth is the simplest and best property name. It may not be perfectly accurate but it's meaning is accurate in all the most common use cases I can think of. Names like minimumWidthButOnlyIfAutomaticallyCalculated do appeal to a certain side of me though ;-)
I wasn't sure what the standard policy for width was within Pivot. But if it is an absolute I think the code I submitted is not correct. With maximumWidth, that could lead to some pretty cool ways of resizing tables. On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 10:21:22 am Greg Brown wrote: > Simply setting min. width to width when an explicit width value is set > is an interesting idea. However, any time an absolute width is > specified, the min. width is going to be ignored: a width value that > is not -1 and not relative is always respected. In other words, the > min. width wouldn't even be consulted in this case - min. width really > does only apply to a calculated size. > > I can't think of a concise way to represent that in a property name, > though - "minimumCalculatedWidth" isn't very clear. > "minimumPreferredWidth" isn't accurate. I almost think that > "minimumWidth" is the best option, though we'd have to document that > it would be ignored if an absolute width was given. In either case, we > should probably also provide a "maximumWidth" property for parity. > > What do you think these properties should be called? > > G > > On Sep 16, 2009, at 7:57 PM, Scott Lanham wrote: > > The only case that I can think of where minimum width and explicit > > width work > > together is when the column says "This is the size I want to be but > > if you do > > need to resize me you shouldn't squash me down to any more than the > > minimum". > > The bound check on that is just to make sure the minimum width is > > not greater > > then width. Should an exception be thrown in this case or just set > > minimum > > width to width? > > > > On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 09:41:33 am Greg Brown wrote: > >> I just mean checking an explicitly set width value (i.e. not -1 and > >> not relative) against min. width, and vice versa. Of course, if we > >> defined it as the "minumum automatically determined width" vs. a > >> literal minimum width, then we wouldn't have to do that. > >> > >> I'm not sure what the best solution is - just throwing some ideas > >> out. > >> > >> On Sep 16, 2009, at 7:37 PM, Scott Lanham wrote: > >>> I am happy to do more but I don't know what you mean by bounds > >>> checking. I can > >>> probably guess as to what the property change events should be. > >>> > >>> On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 09:30:41 am Greg Brown wrote: > >>>> I like it. We'll need to do some bounds checking and fire property > >>>> change events, but it does seem like a useful feature. Want to > >>>> take a > >>>> stab at rounding it out? > >>>> > >>>> On Sep 16, 2009, at 7:13 PM, Scott Lanham wrote: > >>>>> Hi, > >>>>> > >>>>> Just another QADH ( Quick and Dirty Hack ). I don't expect this is > >>>>> up to the > >>>>> standard you guys like. > >>>>> > >>>>> I was playing around with resizing a TableView that is within a > >>>>> ScrollPane > >>>>> that is within a SplitPane and realised that I didn't want > >>>>> relative > >>>>> sized > >>>>> column widths to shrink to nothing before the horizontal scroll > >>>>> bar > >>>>> kicked in. > >>>>> I also wanted to set a minimum width for auto sized column widths > >>>>> (-1) so that > >>>>> the header wasn't obscured. > >>>>> > >>>>> What I did to implement this is attached. > >>>>> > >>>>> Cheers, > >>>>> > >>>>> Scott. > >>>>> <pivot_svn_patch_20090917_01.diff>
