On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 09:43, Peter Schneider <[email protected]>wrote:
> Hi Derrell,
>
> thanks for your suggestions, but I like to "disagree" a bit ;)
>
You're allowed. :-)
>
> 1. <null>-values in tables are quite well handled as far as I can see in my
> application. I am using <null>-values all over the place here.
> The only thing that came up (so far) was when I changed the sorting to
> "case-insensitive"...
> But you are of cause correct with your "uncharted territory" warning ;)
>
> 2. I don't like the idea to change the content of the model data. This is a
> bad
> idea for my application because I do have empty strings ("") and
> <null>-value data. And on selection of row(s) I have to get the "raw
> data"
> for further evaluation.
> So I have to stick to the subclass approach, or patch my local framework
> copy.
>
> Nevertheless, do you think it's worth filing a bug for this "special case"
> ?
>
Because of the previously-mentioned "uncharted territory", and therefore the
amount of testing that would be required to claim that nulls are really
supported, and particularly because new applications a year from now will
likely be using a new table widget based on qx.ui.virtual.*, I'm reluctant
to spend the time on such testing. Since this is really an enhancement
request, that time is likely better (IMO) spent elsewhere.
Null handling in the Table widget has not been a frequently-requested
feature. In fact, I don't recall ever seeing anything about this before. As
I suggested, it's easy enough for you to subclass Simple for your own
application.
You're of course welcome to file an enhancement bug for it. Others may have
a different opinion than mine, and choose to work on your request.
Cheers,
Derrell
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
qooxdoo-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/qooxdoo-devel
