After giving this more thought, I think the best option is to get rid of ColumnWidths and roll it into CellTable directly, so you would have: CellTable.setColumnWidth(Column col, double width, Unit unit) CellTable.setColumnWidth(Column col, String)
I suggest this for two reasons: 1. We don't need a CellTable#refreshColumnWidths() method because CellTable always knows when the width changes. Both the ColumnWidths proposal and Column#setWidth() have the problem that the table isn't notified of the change. We could add event handlers to ColumnWidths/Column, but thats a bit of overkill. 2. I'm not 100% sold on Column#setWidth() because its possible to use the same column in two tables but have different widths. For example, a source table and a destination table that both contain a summary column. Thanks, John LaBanca [email protected] On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 9:31 PM, Miroslav Pokorny <[email protected] > wrote: > Minor suggestion but would not ColumnWidthSource be a better name than > ColumnWidths, after all it is a source of column widths given a column. When > i see classes w/ plural names, i think of classes w/ static helpers > java.util.Collections. Guice is another example of this naming style. > > -- > http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors > -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
