I've had the same (terrible!) experiences as Johan and the
frustration level was intense. It is practically impossible to extend
anything in Swing. It might be a flexible framework, but it is hell to
extend.
I'm trying to address this in two ways in Wicket:
1) Hit you guys over the head when I see high coupling anywhere (which
is a major problem with Swing)
2) Push you guys to be ready to make a method non-final or public on a
minute's notice if it passes a design review.
The point is: either you promise to be on your toes or you make
it possible to extend the framework without you. The alternative is
hell.
Gili
On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 22:58:35 +0100, Johan Compagner wrote:
>I didn't plan to have this discussion agian right now ;)
>But suddenly my name!
>
>Yes i am pretty much againts private /final ect.
>I thing the default java way is much better the the C++ way..
>But by using final you THINK about it so you know you are making it non
>extendable.. And that is good
>If it is the other way around people just forget it. And then the user
>that wants to use it is screwed...
>
>I have so many examples for example in swing that i stumbled on so that
>i can't do my thing
>how i have to work around things like the private
>JFormattedTextField.setValue(Object,boolean)
>The stupid thing is that now with 1.5.0 they have implemented it the way
>i was trying to do anyway!
>(they added another boolean to skip the property change.. And that was
>one of the things i wanted to control
>But still i can't call that method from a sub class because it is
>private....
>
>And there are more of these things. For examples NavigationFilters (how
>the caret walks through the textfield)
>You can get the default way but if you want it really like they do but a
>bit different? This is not possible
>Al hangs in package scope classes and call on each other. I did start to
>get it out of the package. Before i know
>it i had copied many classes of the swing text classes ect. And still it
>didn't work because it did call a special method
>of the formattedtextfield itself! So there is now way i can build my own
>Filter like they do because they have
>access to much much more.
>
>No i will never be conviced any other way everything as open as
>possible. Give me the choice what i want to do!
>
>johan
>
>
>Eelco Hillenius wrote:
>
>> Well, I am viewing this as both a framework builder and as a framework
>> user.
>>
>> As a framework builder, yes I think it is a good thing to have things
>> under control.
>>
>> As a user, I benefit from a framework that is tight written because
>> the API will probably clearer and more consistent. However, I've
>> cursed many times on some of the JDK classes for being impossible to
>> extend. And hey, I got valid use cases (from my point of view), but no
>> way those private/ final stuff is out of there the next release. And I
>> have heard complaints from Johan in this respect as well (I think when
>> he works on http://www.servoy.com/).
>>
>> IMO it should be a nice mix, and Wicket is a bit tighter than I would
>> have build. But I'm probably just an idiot ;)
>>
>> Eelco
>>
>>
>> Jonathan Locke wrote:
>>
>>> it's interesting to generalize this whole viewpoint. the reason we make
>>> everything as private as possible is to encapsulate (this point leads to
>>> the whole getters-are-evil discussion because those expose details that
>>> might not need to be exposed). the reason we encapsulate is to reduce
>>> dependencies on implementation details. the reason we try to reduce
>>> dependencies is to /reduce our commitments to framework users/.
>>> in some sense, i think the whole point of OO programming is to control
>>> access. everything should be as final and as private as possible
>>> until a
>>> commitment to a wider access is /well understood/. people cannot write
>>> software that works in the first place. opening things up
>>> architecturally
>>> before extensibility is carefully managed is a recipe for an even bigger
>>> disaster. see windows!
>>>
>>> On Tue, 4 Jan 2005, Eelco Hillenius wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------------
>> The SF.Net email is sponsored by: Beat the post-holiday blues
>> Get a FREE limited edition SourceForge.net t-shirt from ThinkGeek.
>> It's fun and FREE -- well, almost....http://www.thinkgeek.com/sfshirt
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wicket-develop mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop
>>
>>
>
>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------
>The SF.Net email is sponsored by: Beat the post-holiday blues
>Get a FREE limited edition SourceForge.net t-shirt from ThinkGeek.
>It's fun and FREE -- well, almost....http://www.thinkgeek.com/sfshirt
>_______________________________________________
>Wicket-develop mailing list
>[email protected]
>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop
>
-------------------------------------------------------
The SF.Net email is sponsored by: Beat the post-holiday blues
Get a FREE limited edition SourceForge.net t-shirt from ThinkGeek.
It's fun and FREE -- well, almost....http://www.thinkgeek.com/sfshirt
_______________________________________________
Wicket-develop mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop
