|

»

deprecate qx.util.range

View: New views

3 Messages — Rating Filter: Alert me

	deprecate qx.util.range by Martin Wittemann :: Rate this Message: Reply to Author \| View Threaded \| Show Only this Message Hello, we added a bug some time ago discussing whether we still need the class and interface in the qx.util.range namespace. (http://bugzilla.qooxdoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2476) The namespace contains one interface and one class implementing that interface. - qx - util - range - IRange.js - Range.js Perhaps someone in the community can give us a hint why we should not deprecate the class and interface. Do you use this interface / class? Regards, Martin ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ qooxdoo-devel mailing list qooxdoo-devel@... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/qooxdoo-devel
	Re: deprecate qx.util.range by Martin Wittemann :: Rate this Message: Reply to Author \| View Threaded \| Show Only this Message Oh, I forgot to mention that we have another Range interface in qx.ui.form.IRange which could replace the util range interface. So removing the interface is just a try to reduce the redundancy in the framework. The Range class were used in the 0.7 line of qooxdoo for the spinner and the progress bar. The 0.8 spinner uses its own, internal range implementation now. So the only thing using this Range is the progress bar in the contrib section. Martin Am 26.06.2009 um 10:51 schrieb Martin Wittemann: > Hello, > we added a bug some time ago discussing whether we still need the > class and interface in the qx.util.range namespace. > (http://bugzilla.qooxdoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2476) > The namespace contains one interface and one class implementing that > interface. > > - qx > - util > - range > - IRange.js > - Range.js > > Perhaps someone in the community can give us a hint why we should not > deprecate the class and interface. Do you use this interface / class? > Regards, > Martin > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > qooxdoo-devel mailing list > qooxdoo-devel@... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/qooxdoo-devel > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ qooxdoo-devel mailing list qooxdoo-devel@... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/qooxdoo-devel
	Re: deprecate qx.util.range by thron7-2 :: Rate this Message: Reply to Author \| View Threaded \| Show Only this Message The ProgressBar contribution uses a class of the qx.util.range name space, but not Range but IntegerRange (which is non-existent in 0.8). Anybody porting the ProgressBar to 0.8 will have to re-invent a range type if it is not provided by the framework. The main point for me is that it seems to be a sensible thing to have a general range data type anyway. The ProgressBar and the Slider classes should make it obvious that a range type is a necessary thing to have in a comprehensive framework. It is a special kind of iterator, where the objects you iterate over have a natural order. Iterators are such a common data types that many programming languages provide them per default, at least in the form of interfaces (e.g. Python). So I would second keeping the qx.util.range.Range anyway. If you have such a class you should have it in the most generic way (which rules out qx.ui.form). More specific classes should use the generic range class. I think it is a case of lack of proper abstraction that there is a range implementation in the qx.ui.form name space. qx.util is obviously much more general than qx.ui.form! That said, the current implementation in qx.util.range seems to be rather deficient. You cannot specify a step width, nor does it have a next() method to iterate over the range. So it seems the only thing you can do with such ranges are inclusion tests, but not even for that is there a suitable method. For reasons I don't know, this range data type has been reduced to near uselessness. So I suggest improving it to be a proper range type, and not re-implement similar functionality in special-purpose name spaces (like qx.ui.form). T. Martin Wittemann wrote: > Oh, I forgot to mention that we have another Range interface in > qx.ui.form.IRange which could replace the util range interface. So > removing the interface is just a try to reduce the redundancy in the > framework. > The Range class were used in the 0.7 line of qooxdoo for the spinner > and the progress bar. The 0.8 spinner uses its own, internal range > implementation now. So the only thing using this Range is the progress > bar in the contrib section. > > Martin > > > Am 26.06.2009 um 10:51 schrieb Martin Wittemann: > > >> Hello, >> we added a bug some time ago discussing whether we still need the >> class and interface in the qx.util.range namespace. >> (http://bugzilla.qooxdoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2476) >> The namespace contains one interface and one class implementing that >> interface. >> >> - qx >> - util >> - range >> - IRange.js >> - Range.js >> >> Perhaps someone in the community can give us a hint why we should not >> deprecate the class and interface. Do you use this interface / class? >> Regards, >> Martin >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> _______________________________________________ >> qooxdoo-devel mailing list >> qooxdoo-devel@... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/qooxdoo-devel >> >> >> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > qooxdoo-devel mailing list > qooxdoo-devel@... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/qooxdoo-devel > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ qooxdoo-devel mailing list qooxdoo-devel@... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/qooxdoo-devel