Extending Builders: Layout Builders

[Tom Schindl]

the nice thing about the current expression with static calls is that
the semantics for adding children are always the same whether your
target is a Layout-Container or e.g. a Group.

You always call add on the target your specified. Your way of layout
containers expects two different things to happen:
* for layout container you want to call add on the owner because you
  want to pass the constraint object
* you can add on the list itself for stuff like Group but also Tables

Not to forget how would you like set the constraint when you not add to
a list e.g. when using a borderpane?

Tom

Am 21.11.12 19:02, schrieb Tom Eugelink:
> I suspect the constraints were already "out" before FXML, but this would
> be a fairly acceptable notation:
> 
> |<HBox>
>     <Label  fx:id="arrow"  alignment="center"   text="" 
> maxWidth="Infinity">        |
> ||        <HBox.Cvgrow="ALWAYS"  hgrow="ALWAYS"|/>
>     <Label>
> </HBox>
> |
> 
> 
> Or:
> 
> |<HBox>
>     <Label  fx:id="arrow"  alignment="center"   text="" 
> maxWidth="Infinity"|||HBox.C.vgrow="ALWAYS"  HBox.C.hgrow="ALWAYS"|/>
> </HBox>
> |
> 
> 
> 
> On 2012-11-21 17:46, Tom Schindl wrote:
>> Am 21.11.12 09:46, schrieb Richard Bair:
>>> I wanted constraint classes from the start. There was a problem
>>> there, which I don't accurately remember now, but I do want to see
>>> some discussion around deprecating (or at least no longer depending
>>> on) the static methods and having some constraint classes again.
>> They've probably been harder to implement in FXML?
>>
>> Tom
>>
>>
> 


-- 
B e s t S o l u t i o n . a t                        EDV Systemhaus GmbH
------------------------------------------------------------------------
tom schindl                 geschäftsführer/CEO
------------------------------------------------------------------------
eduard-bodem-gasse 5-7/1   A-6020 innsbruck     fax      ++43 512 935833
http://www.BestSolution.at                      phone    ++43 512 935834