[API Review]: Node validation

[Ali Ebrahimi]

I say validate should also not change state, otherwise computeBounds would
be better name for method.
Consider validate in input validation.


On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 8:57 PM, Scott Palmer <swpalmer at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >
> >
>