[API Review]: Node validation

[Pavel Safrata]

To me this sounds best so far. Perhaps updateVisuals() would be even better?
Pavel

On 8.7.2013 18:45, Scott Palmer wrote:
> validateVisuals() ?
> Or something with the word "visual" as it combines layout and other CSS
> information.
>
> Scott
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 12:31 PM, Richard Bair <richard.bair at oracle.com>wrote:
>
>> OK, just throwing something wild out there. Right now we have a layout
>> pass and a css pass. Can they be combined? Can we combine them just into
>> something that happens during layout? And can the existing "layout()"
>> method be the thing that kicks it all off?
>>
>> Wild and crazy but just throwing it out there (personally I'm
>> uncomfortable conflating CSS and layout as I believe there will be use
>> cases to do one and not the other at times).
>>
>> Richard
>>
>> On Jul 8, 2013, at 9:27 AM, 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
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>