But if I set the min and max sizes, then the user cannot resize the
columns. And...well, my users need to be able to resize the columns...
So, I guess I should enter a feature request (or else provide a
patch ;-) that there some way for the table to set the initial column
width to the preferred width.
jay
On May 7, 6:08 pm, John LaBanca <jlaba...@google.com> wrote:
> If you want the columns to be an exact size, set the minimum and maximum
> column widths and call resetColumnWidths() or set the resize policy to
> FIXED.
> The preferred width is exactly that, the width that the columns should
> attempt to maintain if they can. When the resize policy is set to
> FILL_WIDTH, the table will update the column widths on every page load.
> When it is set to anything else, you must update the width manually
> (although that is probably a bug). Either way, the preferred width is not
> guaranteed, but the minimum and maximum widths are.
>
> Thanks,
> John LaBanca
> jlaba...@google.com
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 7:11 PM, jay <jay.gin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I've set my table resize policy to UNCONSTRAINED. I then very
> > carefully setup my ColumnDefinitions to have the right preferred size
> > (because the user may have previously resized the columns, and I need
> > to honor that size).
>
> > What I've noticed, though, is that "out-of-the-box", my columns are
> > *always* 80px wide (which seems to correspond to
> > FixedWidthGrid.DEFAULT_COLUMN_WIDTH.
>
> > It seems to me (and please...correct me if I'm misusing/abusing the
> > PagingScrollTable) that when I set the table definition, it should be
> > setting the column widths to their preferred size, rather than
> > allowing the default size to kick in.
>
> > FWIW, my work-around is to override setTableDefinition() as follows:
>
> > �...@override
> > public void setTableDefinition(
> > TableDefinition<RowType> tableDefinition
> > ) {
> > super.setTableDefinition( tableDefinition );
> > refreshVisibleColumnDefinitions();
>
> > List<ColumnDefinition<RowType, ?>> columns =
> > getVisibleColumnDefinitions();
> > for ( int index = 0, numCols = columns.size(); index < numCols;
> > index++ ) {
> > setColumnWidth( index, columns.get
> > ( index ).getPreferredColumnWidth() );
> > }
> > }
>
> > Would problems be caused if this behavior was in the base class? (My
> > goal is to have the PagingScrollTable "just work". I'll be the first
> > to admit that what I consider "just working" may not work for
> > others...)
>
> > thanks,
>
> > jay
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
