fine with me -igor
On 11/4/07, Al Maw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At the moment, you can't set the number of items on an > AbstractPageableView without it also calling getRowCount(). > > The reason for this is that internalSetRowsPerPage(int) calls > setCurrentPage(0), and that itself does a check to see if the page index > you're setting is out of range, which causes a getRowCount() to be > triggered. > > There are two reasons I don't like this: > > It's an extra call to getRowCount(). Sure, you could cache this count, > but I see no reason to check the size if you're setting the current page > to zero. > > The main reason I don't like it is that it means you need to know the > size when you construct your component. This makes it hard to write > subclasses that do set-up in their constructor, as the super-constructor > will be calling getRowCount() potentially before you've done that set-up > in your chained subclass constructor. It's annoying. > > So, the question is, would anyone object if I changed > AbstractPageableView#setCurrentPage(int) so that if you pass in zero, it > doesn't bother doing the getPageCount() check? > > Regards, > > Al >
