Yep, that is what you're doing. Sorry for my failure at reading comprehension. :)
I can certainly see why you would have that expectation for an "unconstrained" table. And if I'm reading John's "probably a bug" comment correctly, then it sounds like that might be a good thing to enter in the issue tracker. And your comments are certainly welcome. Feedback is always needed, especially in the incubator. On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 4:11 PM, jay <[email protected]> wrote: > > Yes! When the table width is unconstrained, I want it to honor the > preferred width of every column. > > If you glance back at my original post, you'll see that I'm doing > exactly what you suggest :-) It's just that this was surprising to me, > and required more work than I think ought to be needed. > > (I understand that this widget is still in the incubator... I hope > that my comments are coming across as helpful, because I really am > trying to be helpful, and not critical. I chalk all of this up to > "hey...let's throw something out there, and see what else needs to be > done.") > > thanks! > > jay > > On May 11, 11:31 am, Isaac Truett <[email protected]> wrote: >> Jay, >> >> Am I right in understanding that you're expecting the table, when >> unconstrained, to grow until each column can occupy its preferred >> width? It should be possible to achieve that, although just setting >> preferred size may not be enough. There used to be a setColumnWidth() >> method that would set a column's size, but still allow it to be >> resized later. I don't know what the gen2 PST equivalent would be, but >> I can dig around a bit later if I get some time. >> >> >> >> On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 1:14 PM, jay <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > 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 <[email protected]> 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 >> >> [email protected] >> >> >> On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 7:11 PM, jay <[email protected]> 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
