In fact the tree was created with the swing tree component in mind as might also be stated somewhere in the comments of the sources. In fact the myfaces TreeNode interface is a clone of the swing TreeNode interface. Reason is that I did not like the idea of having myfaces depend on swing because of that interface.

And to answer the question why children() returns an Iterator and not an Enumeration: well, I prefer Iterator because of it's interface which I know from other languages. There is no deeper reason than that. If you like I'm just following the Enumeration javadoc: ' New implementations should consider using Iterator in preference to Enumeration.' :-)

Oliver


Heath Borders wrote:

I'm in favor of using the Swing TreeNode interface.  I'd really like
to see this whole thing implemented exactly like the swing JTree with
the models they have.


On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 12:08:54 -0500, Sean Schofield
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


One revision to my suggestion would be to not have a separate
interface for branch vs. regular node.  We can probably use the
existing MyFaces TreeNode interface which has an isLeaf method.  It
turns out this is how its done in the Swing version of TreeNode so we
should probably conform to that.

One question for Oliver would be why the children() method returns an
Interrator instead of Enumeration as in the Swing version?  Other than
this method the TreeNode interface seems to match the Swing version.

Also, would it be appropriate to just use the
javax.swing.tree.TreeNode interface?  If the interfaces are identical
maybe we could just use the one in the java API.  Its a little odd
perhaps but I can't really think of a good reason not to do so.

sean









--
Oliver Rossmueller
Software Engineer and IT-Consultant
Hamburg, Germany
http://www.rossmueller.com



Reply via email to