[java-gnome-hackers] RE: [Java-gnome-checkins] CVS: java-gnome/gtk TODO.gtk,1.38,1.39

[Jeffrey M. <Jef...@Br...>]

> On Fri, Feb 20, 2004 at 10:23:48AM -0500, Jeffrey Morgan wrote:
> > 2) The tree control and related classes are a critical component
> > of the bindings.  Since Mark is busy I plan to spend next week
> > working on these classes.  Mark, you could really help by sending
> > an email that would provide an overview of these classes, how they
> > work together, what you were able to complete and what remains.  
> I'll try but I'm not sure when.
> 
> > During my review I added that we should change a couple of the 
> > classes to Interfaces since they are implemented this way in gtk. 
> > I did this for FileChooser and implemented a FileChooserHelper 
> > class to actually implement those methods so there was no 
> > duplication of code.  Does this make sence for the Tree widgets?
> I guess. We should probably do the same for the sortable interface for
> trees.

Do you think this is a wise move?  You know better than anybody how
complex these 

> 
> > Also, I am not real happy with the class name DataBlock.  
> What these 
> > really represent are column types.  I know this would break
> > a lot of code but we should discuss this before our API freeze.
> > Could we change this to something like ColumnType? Also, could
> > these be stored as members of the store so calls to setValue
> > would not need to pass them as a parameter.  setValue could then
> > just pass a 0 based column number. 
> 1) Having two things called columns related to the same widget is
> confusing. TreeViews have columns (things you see) and treemodels have
> columns (for storing a particular type of data). Perhaps DataColumn or
> DataStoreColumn would be better? 

DataStoreColumn seems fine to me.  What does everybody else think?

> It is not merely a 
> ColumnType since the
> integer value refers to a particular column; however, it is not an
> object which stores the data of a column, just acts like a pointer to
> the data.
> DataBlock might not be the best name, but I still think it's 
> better than
> ColumnType. 
> 
> 2) By using these rather than integers, we can enforce that 
> the correct
> type of object is being passed to setValue/getValue and so 
> can overload
> them.  I think this is the most important point. 

Good point.  I agree.

> 3) Having named object rather than integers is far more intuitive when
> programming.

Yes.  

> 
> What do you think?
> 
> -- 
>   .''`. Mark Howard
>  : :' :
>  `. `'  http://www.tildemh.com 
>    `-   mh...@de... | mh...@ti... | mh...@ca... 
> 

 NOTE: THIS IS A CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION. This transmission is intended
only for the use of the individuals or entity to which it is addressed. If
you are not the intended recipient, or the person responsible for delivering
the message to the intended recipient, please return or delete it
immediately. Although this e-mail and any attachments are believed to be
free of any virus or other defect, it is the responsibility of the recipient
to ensure that it is virus free and no responsibility is accepted by us for
any loss or damage arising in any way from its unauthorized modification or
use.