A quick thought and question :
Why not implement isEnabled() using parent isEnabled() ?
public boolean isEnabled() {
if (null == getParent())
return enabled;
else
return getParent().isEnabled() && enabled ;
}
or maybe with another name isRecursiveEnabled().
Just a thought.
DreamTangerine.
On sáb, 2011-10-08 at 10:10 +0200, Noel Grandin wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 01:49, Bill van Melle (Commented) (JIRA)
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > In particular, it is important that setting enabled to true for the
> > container not suddenly enable children that had been disabled befOre the
> > container was >disabled.
> >
>
> This is what makes any solution extremely hard. What happens if I do this:
> container.setEnabled(false);
> child1.setEnabled(false);
> container.setEnabled(true);
>
> What is the right set of children to re-enable?
> There is no right answer.
>
> I do not believe that we can build behaviour that will satisfy all use-cases.
> The best we can do is to provide some tools to make it easier to
> achieve various ends.
>
> To that end, my proposed solution is:
> (1) setEnabled(boolean) does what it does now
> (2) setEnabledRecursive(boolean) is defined at the Container level,
> walks all the way down it's tree, affecting every element.
>
> If you want behaviour different from this, you will have to override
> setEnabled() and setEnabledRecursive() and implement your own logic.
>
> Anything else is simply not going to satisfy all users. I know - I've
> had this discussion before on the SwingX mailing list.
>
> -- Noel Grandin
>
