Layouts with constraint classes (was: Extending Builders: Layout Builders)

[Tom Eugelink]

On 2012-11-29 22:16, Daniel Zwolenski wrote:
> This thread has meandered a bit and I've lost track of the problem you're trying to solve. Would it be possible to restate the end goal (in a short sentence or two)?
>

Your are right. The original post suggested adding an number of methods to the layout builders. I suggested to not do that, but use formal constraint classes. Richard asked for a discussion on that topic. There was one, but at this point I would say that it comes down to preference, because the getChildren() API and the add(N,C) are in conflict. One camp wants the constraints in the node so you can still use getChildren. The other wants the constraints in the layout, because they are only of value in context of that particular layout. (About your remark on "another type of parent"; that is "another parent", or another instance of a layout classes... there is nothing static going on.)

Tom