Hi Scott,
welcome in the group ... happy coding.
Ah, thanks for your infos.
Bye
I am a grumpy old C++ programmer pretending to do Java ;-) So do you
guys
still want me to try and implement this stuff?
Absolutely, if you are willing to give it a shot.
BTW, I used to program in C++ myself, so I can certainly understand
how it might make one grumpy. ;-)
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 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 1
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
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 12:37:14 am Greg Brown 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 col
Hi Sandro,
> Ok, but to achieve an effect like this how can i do ?
> For example, can i set a text field to 80% of its container, so i i
> enlarge the window (and the container), also text field will be
> stretched ? Or maybe this could be applied to a Form containing all
> elements ...
> Or is th
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
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 setWi
Hi Todd,
> In this case, it's not applying to a component, but a table view column.
> Components already have min/max preferred size properties, which buys us
> similar functionality for components. I don't think this applied to table
> pane columns either, since (a) relative width columns in a t
> what do you think on adding a feature like this also to other elements
> (if not already available) ?
> So we could put this standard logic only in one place, and call from
> all components ...
>
In this case, it's not applying to a component, but a table view column.
Components already have min
Hi to all,
throwing some other idea on this theme:
what do you think on adding a feature like this also to other elements
(if not already available) ?
So we could put this standard logic only in one place, and call from
all components ...
And in some cases could be useful to have lists, text fiel
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
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
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
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 solutio
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 l
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
17 matches
Mail list logo
