> > Since these class info is used to initialize the internal attributes and
> > elements of TableView instance, if this class info was set after the
> > generic class instance is created, we need to call some initialization
> > method at the timing.
>
> Can you elaborate on your concern here?
>
> My concern is rather purity of implementation. If we don't call
> setBeanType(cls), the created object don't have any specific GUI info since
> it has no info to create it.
It will still have a GUI - by default, TableView contains an empty column
sequence, which is perfectly valid. Calling setColumns(Class<?>) would simply
create a new (non-empty) sequence.
> So the initialization must be taken place at the setter setBeanType(cls),
> for instance it will be :
>
> void setBeanType(Class<?> cls) {
> this.cls = cls;
> initialize();
> }
>
> void initialize() {
> for (final Field field: cls.getFields()) {
> final String fname = field.getName();
> getColumns().add(new TableView.Column() {{
> setName(fname);
> setWidth(3, true);
> ....
> }
Why not just put the initialize() code in the setter? Nothing else needs to
call it.
> If setter is invoked twice, i will initialize twice (although we can use some
> flag to avoid this, but I think it is ugly)
Why would the setter be invoked twice?
> So conceptually, it is better to pass class object at the time of instance
> creation.
That isn't supported in BXML. Anything instantiated in BXML needs a default
no-arg constructor - all properties are specified via setters.
G
