On Sun, 20 Apr 2025 08:19:15 GMT, Jeremy Wood <[email protected]> wrote:
> This PR changes how the BorderLayout positions components when they don't fit
> inside a container.
>
> This should have no effect on BorderLayouts that match or exceed their
> preferred size.
>
> (The name of this PR/ticket is a little misleading: this in no way relates to
> `component.getMinimumSize()`.)
>
> Here is part of a comment in that ticket that sums up what this PR is trying
> to fix:
>> Instead of the South Component being placed partially offscreen as Windows
>> does, it is often placed on top of the North Component. Indeed,
>> BorderLayout.layoutContainer() always places the South Component flush with
>> the bottom of the Container and does not check if the Container is smaller
>> than the minimum size, or if the North and South Components overlap.
>
> Previously child components could:
> A. be assigned negative (x,y) coordinates
> B. be assigned negative widths or heights
> C. overlap other child components
> D. be assigned dimensions that don't fit inside the target container
>
> This PR will instead constrain certain values. Now child components may be
> given a width/height of zero pixels, but they should never show the 4
> behaviors stated above.
>
> We encountered this basic problem last week at work (we could end up with a
> component with a negative height). Our work-around was more complex than this
> PR: we wrote a modified BorderLayout that would switch to using
> `component.getMinimumSize()` when the preferred size wouldn't fit. IMO that
> is a better option all-around, but it is dangerously invasive for an OpenJDK
> proposal. I'm happy to discuss that idea further, though, if anyone here
> disagrees.
test/jdk/java/awt/BorderLayout/ConstrainedBorderLayoutChildrenTest.java line 84:
> 82:
> 83: return true;
> 84: } catch(Throwable t) {
Suggestion:
} catch (Throwable t) {
test/jdk/java/awt/BorderLayout/ConstrainedBorderLayoutChildrenTest.java line
120:
> 118:
> 119: return true;
> 120: } catch(Throwable t) {
Suggestion:
} catch (Throwable t) {
test/jdk/java/awt/BorderLayout/ConstrainedBorderLayoutChildrenTest.java line
155:
> 153:
> 154: return true;
> 155: } catch(Throwable t) {
Suggestion:
} catch (Throwable t) {
test/jdk/java/awt/BorderLayout/ConstrainedBorderLayoutChildrenTest.java line
181:
> 179:
> 180: return true;
> 181: } catch(Throwable t) {
Suggestion:
} catch (Throwable t) {
test/jdk/java/awt/BorderLayout/ConstrainedBorderLayoutChildrenTest.java line
206:
> 204:
> 205: return true;
> 206: } catch(Throwable t) {
Suggestion:
} catch (Throwable t) {
test/jdk/java/awt/BorderLayout/ConstrainedBorderLayoutChildrenTest.java line
232:
> 230:
> 231: return true;
> 232: } catch(Throwable t) {
Suggestion:
} catch (Throwable t) {
-------------
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/24772#discussion_r2054863768
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/24772#discussion_r2054863922
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/24772#discussion_r2054864116
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/24772#discussion_r2054864351
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/24772#discussion_r2054864463
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/24772#discussion_r2054864618
