[API Review]: Node validation

[Scott Palmer]

Since CSS is implicitly tied to layout, validateLayout() seems to be enough.

I don't like "verify" or "check" - To me, these imply a method that is
doing checks only and not changing state.  A "verify" method would be
something that returns a boolean or throws an exception.

Scott


On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 9:07 AM, Ali Ebrahimi <ali.ebrahimi1781 at gmail.com>wrote:

> just my suggestions:
> validation is a side effect free concept. but your validate contains css &
> layout processing for  Node, so validate is very poor name in this case.
> May be better use computeBounds instead.
>  But alternates for validate( if method is a side effect free):
> verify()
> verfifyNode()
> verifyBounds()
> checkNode()
> checkBounds()
>
> best Regards
> Ali Ebrahimi
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 4:50 PM, Martin Sladecek
> <martin.sladecek at oracle.com>wrote:
>
> > The plan is to have a final validate() method.
> > Anyway, does anybody have a better suggestion? The validate should do
> both
> > CSS and layout and I would like to avoid method name that's too
> descriptive
> > (like validateLayoutAndCSS()) if possible.
> > I think the most important thing about the method is that it validates
> the
> > bounds/metrics of the Node, so maybe validateBounds() ?
> >
> > -Martin
> >
> >
> > On 07/08/2013 01:52 PM, Anthony Petrov wrote:
> >
> >> +1
> >>
> >> The validate()/isValid() in AWT/Swing are often overridden by user apps
> >> for tasks that have nothing to do with the layout. And this causes a
> lot of
> >> problems.
> >>
> >> --
> >> best regards,
> >> Anthony
> >>
> >> On 07/08/13 15:20, Pavel Safrata wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hello,
> >>> one more discussion topic: perhaps the "validate" name is too general?
> >>> Maybe we can come up with more descriptive name? There are all kinds of
> >>> nodes and sometimes this name can be misleading (not ringing the layout
> >>> bell at all). For example TextField.validate() may look like validating
> >>> the input. Also I wouldn't be surprised if users run into problems with
> >>> custom nodes having their "validate" methods for different purposes.
> >>> Pavel
> >>>
> >>> On 3.7.2013 14:33, Martin Sladecek wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> JIRA: https://javafx-jira.kenai.com/**browse/RT-31133<
> https://javafx-jira.kenai.com/browse/RT-31133>
> >>>>
> >>>> I propose a single method "public final void validate()" to be added
> >>>> to Node class. The validate method would ensure that the metrics
> >>>> (layout bounds) of the Node are valid with regards to the current
> >>>> scenegraph (CSS & layout).
> >>>>
> >>>> Together with this change, Parent.layout() will be deprecated.
> >>>>
> >>>> In my current implementation, validate() method works only if the Node
> >>>> is in a Scene. To make it work without a Scene, we'd need to do do
> >>>> some small adjustments to CSS (doesn't work with getScene() == null).
> >>>> But I'm not sure if such feature would be useful.
> >>>>
> >>>> Regards,
> >>>> -Martin
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
>