I'd say give it a shot - it's always nice to have more people working on the platform :-D -T
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 4:48 PM, Scott Lanham <[email protected]> wrote: > I am a grumpy old C++ programmer pretending to do Java ;-) So do you guys > still want me to try and implement this stuff? > > On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 12:49:12 am Greg Brown wrote: > > 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> > >
