Reviving this old thread .. Has there been a decision on this yet? Just want to know if PagingScrollTable is likely to make it to trunk in a future release.
--Sri 2009/10/9 Sri <sripathikrish...@gmail.com> > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Bruce Johnson <br...@google.com> > Date: Jul 16, 3:57 pm > Subject: Moving PagingScrollTable & Friends to Trunk > To: Google Web Toolkit Contributors > > > Frankly, we've vacillated on it. The problem is that the currently > implementation, though full-featured, really doesn't scale especially > well > even to medium-sized numbers of rows. Trees have the same problem, as > does > any similar sort of compound widget. > > Increasingly, we're thinking that we should redefine the whole effort > into > designing a family of MVC-style complex widgets. This will require a > lot of > design work, and we're pretty sure we won't be able to get it done > properly > in the 2.0 timeframe. > > So, in terms of your planning, I'd say plan for it *not* to ship with > 2.0. > > On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 2:15 PM, jay <jay.gin...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I was under the impression (based on conversations with GWT team > > members) at Google I/O in May), that moving this into trunk for 2.0 > > was a sure thing. Has something changed? > > > I'll live if this has changed, I'd just like to know. Please...keep us > > informed... > > > thanks, > > > jay > > > On Jul 16, 8:07 am, Isaac Truett <itru...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Issue #188 has 40 stars, making it number seven in the issue list > > > (when sorted appropriately). Let's shoot for number one before John > > > gets back to working on it. ;-) > > > > So if you're anxious for PST to leave the incubator, star this issue: > >http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/issues/detail?id=188 > > > > - Isaac > > > > On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 10:58 AM, John LaBanca<jlaba...@google.com> > > wrote: > > > > We probably won't decide what to move into trunk until we get closer > to > > the > > > > next release. I'm working on improving our unit test coverage to > make > > GWT > > > > more stable, and most of the other UI developers are busy on their > own > > > > tasks. Sorry I don't have a better answer, but I'll escalate the > fact > > that > > > > quite a few people have been asking about the table and would like to > > see it > > > > in trunk. > > > > Thanks, > > > > John LaBanca > > > > jlaba...@google.com > > > > > On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 6:31 PM, jay <jay.gin...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >> Bump again? Any status? > > > > >> thanks... > > > > >> jay > > > > >> On Jul 7, 8:40 am, jay <jay.gin...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> > bump. Anything? > > > > >> > On Jun 24, 10:31 am, jay <jay.gin...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >> > > Just curious if the effort has been resumed? Regardless, is > there > > > >> > > anyway for you to commit what you do have somewhere we could > look > > and > > > >> > > provide feedback? > > > > >> > > thanks, > > > > >> > > jay > > > > >> > > On Jun 10, 8:28 am, John LaBanca <jlaba...@google.com> wrote: > > > > >> > > > @jay - I got side tracked with other tasks, but I'll pick up > the > > > >> > > > PagingScrollTable effort within a couple of weeks. The main > > goal > > > >> > > > when we > > > >> > > > transfer the PagingScrollTable to GWT trunk is to separate the > > > >> > > > concept of > > > >> > > > scrolling (with three distinct tables) from the rest of the > > code. > > > >> > > > That way, > > > >> > > > we can bulk render a single table element that includes the > > > >> > > > header,data, and > > > >> > > > footer and have it layout naturally. > > > > >> > > > @dflorey - I definitely plan to include all three of your > points > > > >> > > > into the > > > >> > > > scroll table. Thanks again for all your contributions. > > > > >> > > > I don't know exactly how long it will take to integrate > > everything > > > >> > > > into the > > > >> > > > GWT trunk, but its one of my highest priorities. > > > > >> > > > Thanks, > > > >> > > > John LaBanca > > > >> > > > jlaba...@google.com > > > > >> > > > On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 10:15 AM, dflorey < > > daniel.flo...@gmail.com> > > > >> > > > wrote: > > > > >> > > > > Hi, > > > >> > > > > I'd like to support this effort and would be glad if some of > > my > > > >> > > > > changes would make it into trunk: > > > >> > > > > - filters > > > >> > > > > - column types for most frequently used column types > > > >> > > > > (numbers,dates,text) including proper filtering, editing and > > > >> > > > > sorting > > > >> > > > > capabilities > > > >> > > > > - simplified table generation ( see > > >http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit-incubator/wiki/TreeTable > > > >> > > > > ) > > > > >> > > > > (TreeTable is not ready for prime time yet) > > > > >> > > > > Daniel > > > > >> > > > > On 10 Jun., 05:34, jay <jay.gin...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> > > > > > I saw the initial commit of these classes into your > branch, > > but > > > >> > > > > > I > > > >> > > > > > haven't seen any additional commits. I'd love to take a > look > > at > > > >> > > > > > the > > > >> > > > > > current direction, and see what other input I can provide. > > > > >> > > > > > jay > > > > >> > > > > > On Jun 9, 7:12 am, John LaBanca <jlaba...@google.com> > > wrote: > > > > >> > > > > > > We'll definitely keep these things in mind when moving > > stuff > > > >> > > > > > > over to > > > >> > > > > GWT > > > >> > > > > > > trunk. We've also found a lot of general usability > > problems, > > > >> > > > > > > such as > > > >> > > > > the > > > >> > > > > > > fact the the table doesn't layout naturally, which means > > apps > > > >> > > > > > > require > > > >> > > > > active > > > >> > > > > > > layout. During the transfer, we'll refactor quite a few > > > >> > > > > > > things to make > > > >> > > > > them > > > >> > > > > > > more usable. Specifically, we'd like to provide a > version > > > >> > > > > > > that allows > > > >> > > > > you > > > >> > > > > > > to bulk renderer the header and footer into the same > table > > > >> > > > > > > element, > > > >> > > > > > > eliminated the three separate tables and fixed layout. > > You > > > >> > > > > > > would lose > > > >> > > > > the > > > >> > > > > > > scrolling feature, but you would not have to use active > > > >> > > > > > > layout. > > > > >> > > > > > > When we start moving stuff into trunk or while its in my > > > >> > > > > > > branch (as in > > > >> > > > > right > > > >> > > > > > > now), thats a good time to point out specific problems > or > > > >> > > > > > > requests. > > > >> > > > > Its > > > >> > > > > > > much harder to change the API after we make an official > > > >> > > > > > > release. > > > > >> > > > > > > Thanks, > > > >> > > > > > > John LaBanca > > > >> > > > > > > jlaba...@google.com > > > > >> > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 5:01 AM, David < > > david.no...@gmail.com> > > > >> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > >> > > > > > > > Jay, > > > > >> > > > > > > > We are experiencing the same ideas here. We store > column > > > >> > > > > > > > ordering and > > > >> > > > > > > > widths on the server but we have no way of getting > > events in > > > >> > > > > > > > the UI > > > >> > > > > to > > > >> > > > > > > > know when changes have been complete. > > > > >> > > > > > > > wouldn't it be nice that the dnd was included as well, > I > > > >> > > > > > > > could really > > > >> > > > > > > > use the DND of columns! Was it hard to implement ? We > > did > > > >> > > > > > > > not yet > > > >> > > > > > > > bother to investigate since we have to focus on > getting > > > >> > > > > > > > functionality > > > >> > > > > > > > complete first. > > > > >> > > > > > > > David > > > > >> > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 10:00 AM, jay< > > jay.gin...@gmail.com> > > > >> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > >> > > > > > > > > As I see that this has begun (yeah!!!!), I'd like to > > throw > > > >> > > > > > > > > out a > > > >> > > > > few > > > >> > > > > > > > > requests: > > > > >> > > > > > > > > * Please, please, please -- ensure that this is as > > > >> > > > > > > > > extensible as > > > >> > > > > > > > > possible. Here's just one example--I've integrated > the > > > >> > > > > > > > > gwt-dnd > > > >> > > > > library > > > >> > > > > > > > > to allow drag-n-drop re-ordering of columns. There > are > > a > > > >> > > > > > > > > couple of > > > >> > > > > > > > > funny corner cases, though, because I have no way of > > > >> > > > > > > > > knowing when a > > > >> > > > > > > > > column resize has completed. Obviously, if you're > > resizing > > > >> > > > > > > > > the > > > >> > > > > column, > > > >> > > > > > > > > you're not interested in dragging it to a new > > location. I > > > >> > > > > > > > > strongly > > > >> > > > > > > > > encourage you to think three, four, five times about > > > >> > > > > > > > > making a > > > >> > > > > method > > > >> > > > > > > > > private or package protected. Liberal use of JavaDoc > > with > > > >> > > > > > > > > strongly > > > >> > > > > > > > > worded warnings to those of us who need to customize > > the > > > >> > > > > > > > > widgets. I > > > >> > > > > > > > > know this cuts down on your ability to make > > > >> > > > > > > > > under-the-cover changes > > > >> > > > > > > > > from release to release, but it makes it so that > folks > > > >> > > > > > > > > like me > > > >> > > > > don't > > > >> > > > > > > > > have to resort to things like JSNI trickery or > copying > > the > > > >> > > > > > > > > entire > > > >> > > > > > > > > class or set of classes into our own code base. > > > > >> > > > > > > > > * As a direct follow up to #1, fire some more > events. > > For > > > >> > > > > > > > > example, > > > >> > > > > > > > > fire an event when a column resize starts and when > it > > > >> > > > > > > > > ends. > > > > >> > > > > > > > > * Flexibility is great, but often I'm just > interested > > in > > > >> > > > > > > > > the > > > >> > > > > simple > > > >> > > > > > > > > cases...simple. My example here is the multiple-row > > header > > > >> > > > > > > > > stuff. > > > >> > > > > It's > > > >> > > > > > > > > GREAT! I LOVE it! (And better yet, our customers > have > > been > > > >> > > > > screaming > > > >> > > > > > > > > for this!) But, I don't always need/want it. And, it > > can > > > >> > > > > > > > > make > > > >> > > > > things > > > >> > > > > > > > > more complex. One idea would be to overload methods > > like > > > >> > > > > getHeader() > > > >> > > > > > > > > on AbstractColumnDefinition...add a version > > ... > > read more ยป --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
