Kawasaki EX500
http://azinger.blogspot.com
http://bsheet.sourceforge.net
http://wcollage.sourceforge.net
--- On Wed, 9/17/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: [The Java Posse] Re: Componentized Designs
> To: "The Java Po
Hi Craig,
Fair enough...the tooling point is a good one. I can only think of a
work-around (maybe an adapter class) to the issue you raise.
-Ken
On Sep 17, 2:21 pm, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Ken,
>
> Yes, but as someone pointed out in the comments on your blog, the
> i
ed, 9/17/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: [The Java Posse] Re: Componentized Designs
> > To: "The Java Posse"
> > Date: Wednesday, September 17, 2008, 3:31 AM
> > Hi Al
--- On Wed, 9/17/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: [The Java Posse] Re: Componentized Designs
> To: "The Java Posse"
> Date: Wednesday, September 17, 2008, 3:31 AM
> Hi Alexey,
>
&g
Hi Joshua,
Even if you sub-classed JComponent, couldn't you achieve the same
result by making your class final?
Craig
On Sep 17, 4:34 pm, Joshua Marinacci <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> By using this factory system it means that the client developer cannot
> subclass the component. They can onl
Hi Ken,
Yes, but as someone pointed out in the comments on your blog, the
improved API has come at the expense of tooling. Since the class is no
longer a Swing component, Swing GUI builders like Matisse can no
longer use them. As I said in my original post, what you gain on the
swings you lose on
Exactly.
On Sep 17, 11:34 am, Joshua Marinacci <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> By using this factory system it means that the client developer cannot
> subclass the component. They can only instantiate and configure it.
>
> On Sep 17, 2008, at 12:31 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
>
> > Hi Alexey
By using this factory system it means that the client developer cannot
subclass the component. They can only instantiate and configure it.
On Sep 17, 2008, at 12:31 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Hi Alexey,
>
> In the end, don't you expose exactly the same API whether you derive
> from JComp
Hi Craig,
At some level you have to expose the actual visual components, so yes,
there is that constant. What is much cleaner though, is the
presentation of the API when it is isolated. When you extend
JComponent, your API is muddled with that of JComponent.
I find that componentized design make
Hi Alexey,
In the end, don't you expose exactly the same API whether you derive
from JComponent or return JComponent via an accessor method?
I'm not necessarily arguing against doing it, I'm just playing devil's
advocate!
Craig.
On Sep 17, 3:54 am, Alexey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The compo
The component may very well return a JComponent object, but that would
be all that's known by the client, unless it resorts to reflection.
So by only guaranteeing the bare minimum of API necessary for a layout
manager to handle the resulting object, Ken allows himself the freedom
to completely cha
> An example I gave in a comment on my blog as to the peril of inheritance was
> JButton
Yeah, another example is that of a JFrame extending Windows which
itself extends Component, giving the illusion that you can add a
JFrame to say a JComponent.
> I like your Keep It Simple attitude - refresh
I like your Keep It Simple attitude - refreshing. The java community
could do with a lot more of that attitude and less worrying about
silly overengineering issues (sure, someone has to worry about it, but
not EVERYONE). Keep it simple and small.
On Sep 16, 11:40 pm, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL P
Hi Ken,
First things first, congratulations on doing a great job with the Mac
widgets and thank you for releasing them under a commerically friendly
open source license!
I guess the question I would ask is what benefit do you think you are
getting by not deriving from JComponent? Since getCompon
14 matches
Mail list logo
