The ProgressBar contribution uses a class of the qx.util.range name space, but not Range but IntegerRange (which is non-existent in 0.8). Anybody porting the ProgressBar to 0.8 will have to re-invent a range type if it is not provided by the framework.
The main point for me is that it seems to be a sensible thing to have a general range data type anyway. The ProgressBar and the Slider classes should make it obvious that a range type is a necessary thing to have in a comprehensive framework. It is a special kind of iterator, where the objects you iterate over have a natural order. Iterators are such a common data types that many programming languages provide them per default, at least in the form of interfaces (e.g. Python). So I would second keeping the qx.util.range.Range anyway. If you have such a class you should have it in the most generic way (which rules out qx.ui.form). More specific classes should use the generic range class. I think it is a case of lack of proper abstraction that there is a range implementation in the qx.ui.form name space. qx.util is obviously much more general than qx.ui.form! That said, the current implementation in qx.util.range seems to be rather deficient. You cannot specify a step width, nor does it have a next() method to iterate over the range. So it seems the only thing you can do with such ranges are inclusion tests, but not even for that is there a suitable method. For reasons I don't know, this range data type has been reduced to near uselessness. So I suggest improving it to be a proper range type, and not re-implement similar functionality in special-purpose name spaces (like qx.ui.form). T. Martin Wittemann wrote: > Oh, I forgot to mention that we have another Range interface in > qx.ui.form.IRange which could replace the util range interface. So > removing the interface is just a try to reduce the redundancy in the > framework. > The Range class were used in the 0.7 line of qooxdoo for the spinner > and the progress bar. The 0.8 spinner uses its own, internal range > implementation now. So the only thing using this Range is the progress > bar in the contrib section. > > Martin > > > Am 26.06.2009 um 10:51 schrieb Martin Wittemann: > > >> Hello, >> we added a bug some time ago discussing whether we still need the >> class and interface in the qx.util.range namespace. >> (http://bugzilla.qooxdoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2476) >> The namespace contains one interface and one class implementing that >> interface. >> >> - qx >> - util >> - range >> - IRange.js >> - Range.js >> >> Perhaps someone in the community can give us a hint why we should not >> deprecate the class and interface. Do you use this interface / class? >> Regards, >> Martin >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> _______________________________________________ >> qooxdoo-devel mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/qooxdoo-devel >> >> >> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > qooxdoo-devel mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/qooxdoo-devel > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ qooxdoo-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/qooxdoo-devel
