On Wed, 15 Dec 2021 01:36:38 GMT, Sergey Bylokhov <[email protected]> wrote:
>> @prrace Shall we update `TableCellEditor` Javadoc to _“Adds to CellEditor >> the extensions necessary to configure an editor in a table.”_ to make it >> similar to `TreeCellEditor`? > > Isn't this is another way around? The doc says that the object implementing > this interface can be used "as an editor of values for components such as > XXX", and it does not say that the XXX class should support the > CellTableEditor? > For example, the DefaultCellEditor class can be used as an editor for > JComboBox/JCheckBox/JTextField. Hm… It's not the other way around. `DefaultCellEditor` implements `TableCellEditor`; the interface defines the `getTableCellEditorComponent` method that returns the _real component_ which will be used as the value editor. So yeah, you're absolutely right: the current statement in the doc seems wrong. I'm for changing the Javadoc for `TableCellEditor` to be similar to `TreeCellEditor`: _“Adds to CellEditor the extensions necessary to configure an editor in a table.”_ The object that implements the interface is not necessarily the editor for values. `DefaultCellEditor` is the perfect example: it's not an editor itself, it's not even a component, all it does is configures a delegate, a `JComponent`, which serves as the editor. ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/6608
