I actually like TextPane: 1) As I mentioned in the other email, it doesn't imply editability but can also support it in the future.
2) The "Pane" suffix makes it clear that it is a container and therefore used for layout. 3) Since its primary purpose would be to support text-like layouts (where the content flows in paragraphs, like text), the "Text" prefix is also appropriate. 4) It is tightly integrated with the classes in the "org.apache.pivot.wtk.text" package, so it has naming consistency. I could also see an argument for "DocumentPane" or "TextLayoutPane", but I think "TextPane" works better. G On Sep 10, 2010, at 3:35 AM, Noel Grandin wrote: > > Obviously, I'm a little biased, because I did the rich text area work :-), > but I think there is a lot of value in > continuing to support the current rich text editor component. > > However, I really like what you are proposing. It sounds a lot like the > Eclipse Forms project, > http://www.eclipse.org/articles/Article-Forms/article.html > which was designed to make text/form/html type layout designs much easier to > achieve. > > I suggest we rename TextArea to RichTextArea or StyledTextArea. > > I don't have an really good suggestions for the new layout component. > FormPane would conflict with our current Form class, > TextPane sounds too much like something text-specific, > FormLayoutPane? > TextLayoutPane? > PagePane? > Just throwing ideas out there. > > > Greg Brown wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> I'm about ready to check in final support for the new TextArea. There are >> still a few bugs to work out, but it is mostly functional. >> >> I'd like to raise the question again of what to call the new "rich text >> area". I'm still pretty excited about the concept of a "TextPane" component >> - this would be a container whose primary purpose is to support text-based >> layouts that aren't easily achievable (or even possible) using some of our >> other layout containers. For example, designers of complex text-based forms >> could really benefit from such a component. >> >> The existing (rich) TextArea class can certainly be used for this purpose, >> but it currently has a lot of baggage since it supports editing. A pure >> "text pane" wouldn't need such support, so it would significantly simplify >> the codebase if we were to eliminate it. >> >> I think there may be a lot more long-term value in a "TextPane" class than a >> "RichTextArea" component. It would also be a lot easier to maintain (which >> is a very valid concern in a volunteer-driven effort like Pivot). >> >> We don't necessarily need to decide right now, but I'm thinking that >> "TextPane" might be a more appropriate name for this component either way. >> It also has a bit more parity with the "org.apache.pivot.wtk.text" package, >> and the view classes, which currently live in org.apache.pivot.wtk.skin, >> could be moved to org.apache.pivot.wtk.skin.text. >> >> Let me know what you think. >> >> G >> >
