> > - Provide a default data table and delegate the selection policy and
> > other
> > data table specific methods to the nested table.
> > I've been confused when using the ScrollTables the first time as I
> > never
> > knew where to find the proper methods. It would be much more intuitive
> > if
> > we could simply call all of these methods on the PagingScrollTable
> > itself.
>
> Maybe... I'm not sure how I feel about this one.
>

I'd like to see at least the selection policy methods and some other
very specific methods delegated so that you can use the simple
PagingScrollTable without knowing about nested tables.

>
>
> > - Provide simple client side table model taking a list or array of the
> > row
> > values
>
> We have on called ClientTableModel that does exactly this.  We even have
> ListTableModel that takes in a List<List<Object>>
>

I just had a look at the ClientTableModel and MutableTableModel but
they both are abstract so I think a simple model taking a list of
RowValues is still missing (or I am missing something...)

> > Now you'd have a complete scroll table with header (taken from table
> > definition), proper sorting, filtering etc.
> > If it is as simple as that, I think removing the limited untyped
> > ScrollTable is of no harm.
>
> I disagree.  Why can't we leave it and still implement your ideas.
>

It's just that I've the feeling that the simplicity of the current
ScollTable is a little bit misleading as you would expect to get
proper type based sorting if you put dates into the cells for example.
If you actually want to have proper sorting you have to do some extra
work.
See
http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit-incubator/issues/detail?id=186
and
http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit-incubator/issues/detail?id=182

If the intention of ScollTable is to simply put two tables together we
should at least remove the sorting capabilities from
AbstractSrollTable as this
suggest simplicity or funcionality that is not there.
But maybe it's just a matter of taste...
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to