Todd had a great suggestion that I think justifies the simpler terminology, and allows these properties to work in conjunction with fixed-width columns: min. and max. width can be used by the table view header skin to bound the size of a column when the user resizes them. That implies that setWidth() should actually throw when width falls outside the allowed range (the default for min. and max. width would be 0 and Integer.MAX_VALUE, respectively, allowing any width value).
What do you think? On Wednesday, September 16, 2009, at 08:47PM, "Scott Lanham" <li...@sael.com.au> wrote: >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> > > >
