Greg, Todd,
I was just about to write a mail that suggests just that. Add a
getName()/setName() pair to Component, that's it. (In fact that's just
what I suggested a month ago... ;-)
Further more, it would be inappropriate to add something like this to
BeanSerializer:
if (wtkxId != null && object instanceof Component)
((Component)object).setName(wtkxId);
Instead I suggest that you look for an annotation on the object's
class, say @Id or @WtkxId or something like that:
@WtkxId("name")
public class Component {
...
public String getName() {...}
public void setName(String name) {...}
}
That way, other classes could get their id injected, too, for whatever
reasons.
I also like Todd's idea of adding a search-for-child-id method to Container.
Dirk.
Todd Volkert <[email protected]> wrote:
If you allowed each component to have a name property, then you could add
methods to Container to get children by their name (since the container has
a reference to all of its children anyway). That way, given a Container, a
caller could get, for instance, the "foo.bar.baz" descendant without
requiring any global name lookup. The Container would have to linearly look
at each of its children, but we do that elsewhere with methods like
getComponentAt(), so I don't see any issue there. All in all, I think it'd
be a valuable addition without disrupting anything.
-T
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 9:32 AM, Greg Brown <[email protected]> wrote:
Just thinking about this a bit more - I don't see any reason why a "name"
property couldn't be added to Component. AWT's Component class has one, and
I don't believe the names are added to any kind of global map. This seems
like it might address the original use case and wouldn't carry any of the
negative implications described below. Thoughts?
On Jun 7, 2010, at 8:16 AM, Greg Brown wrote:
> I stand by what I said about IDs being like Java variable names. A class
instance knows no more about the variable name or names that refer to it
than an object defined in WTKX knows about its ID. An ID is simply another
kind of variable name.
>
> Even if we did make it possible for a Component (or arbitrary object
instantiated in WTKX) to become aware of its ID, the ID wouldn't be of much
value unless it was added to a global ID-to-component mapping table (so it
could be used to look up components). There are a couple of issues with
this:
>
> 1) WTKX IDs are only guaranteed to be unique to the page in which they
are defined (i.e. they are not globally unique). It we define multiple
Components with ID "foo", we have no way to uniquely identify "foo" A vs.
"foo" B.
>
> 2) It is prone to memory leaks.
>
> So again, I would suggest that this is not a good idea.
>
>
> On Jun 7, 2010, at 5:47 AM, Dirk Möbius wrote:
>
>> Since the same discussion has raised up a couple of times now, I suggest
you again to reconsider adding an 'id' property to wtk.Component. See this
thread: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg00686.html
>> My use case given there was not a good example -- this one is. It seems
strange to add a whole new palette of subclassed components just to add an
id property because Component hasn't one.
>>
>> Dirk.
>>
>>
>> Greg Brown <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> One option would be to use the "automationID" property of Component.
However, I think a better approach would be to define a custom subclass of
whatever container type you are using, make it Bindable, and add getters
(but not setters) for each of the components you retrieve from the WTKX
file. That way, you get type safety and you don't need to maintain two
different identifiers for your components.
>>>
>>> On Jun 6, 2010, at 11:09 AM, aappddeevv wrote:
>>>
>>>> I was looking to pass in a container to a method and then pull a few
components out by name (the container has a complex view and the components
I want to access by name are labels, a few labels out of many labels) to do
some processing on. This way I don?t have to add property setters and
getters in my container subclass. In my method, I don?t have access to the
serializer to obtain the components by id.
>>>>
>>>> However, a component name (an optional) property would do the trick.
Is there a way to assign a string ?name? to a component in WTKX and access
it later? In this context, a wtkx:id acts much like a name but as near as I
can tell the wtkx:id is only relevant as a named component in the serializer
versus a property of the component itself.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dirk Möbius
>>
>> SCOOP GmbH
>> Am Kielshof 29
>> D-51105 Köln
>> Fon +49 221 801916-0
>> Fax +49 221 801916-17
>> Mobil +49 170 7363035
>> www.scoop-gmbh.de
>> Sitz der Gesellschaft: Köln
>> Handelsregister: Köln
>> Handelsregisternummer: HRB 36623
>> Geschäftsführer:
>> Dr. Oleg Balovnev
>> Frank Heinen
>> Dr. Wolfgang Reddig
>> Roland Scheel
>>
>>
>
--
Dirk Möbius
SCOOP GmbH
Am Kielshof 29
D-51105 Köln
Fon +49 221 801916-0
Fax +49 221 801916-17
Mobil +49 170 7363035
www.scoop-gmbh.de
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Köln
Handelsregister: Köln
Handelsregisternummer: HRB 36623
Geschäftsführer:
Dr. Oleg Balovnev
Frank Heinen
Dr. Wolfgang Reddig
Roland Scheel
