Scott, Apparently you had already suggested this, but it went right over my head:
>>> > 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". So, good idea. :-) On Thursday, September 17, 2009, at 10:37AM, "Greg Brown" <[email protected]> wrote: >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" ><[email protected]> 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> >> >> >> > >
