Bugzilla – Full Text Bug Listing
| Summary: | [Accessibility] Implement retrieval of visible children | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Eclipse Project] Platform | Reporter: | Scott Kovatch <skovatch> | ||||
| Component: | SWT | Assignee: | Scott Kovatch <skovatch> | ||||
| Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | QA Contact: | Carolyn MacLeod <carolynmacleod4> | ||||
| Severity: | normal | ||||||
| Priority: | P3 | Flags: | carolynmacleod4:
review+
|
||||
| Version: | 3.6 | ||||||
| Target Milestone: | 3.6.1 | ||||||
| Hardware: | Macintosh | ||||||
| OS: | Mac OS X | ||||||
| Whiteboard: | |||||||
| Attachments: |
|
||||||
|
Description
Scott Kovatch
Not for 3.6. Created attachment 171879 [details]
Fix
Car, please review. Unfortunately, nothing I could find looks at the ACC.VISIBLE flag. Code looks fine. Hmmm... too bad nobody implements it. I guess it would be the type of thing someone might implement if there was a performance complaint (on the Mac). Can you think of a snippet that might show this? Something with lots of lightweight children, and most of them off-screen? Maybe add it to the CTable example's getChildren and try it with a large number of cells? (is getChildren called for tables on the Mac? Or just get[Visible]Rows/get[Visible]Columns/getCell?) It would be great to see a bench that showed noticeable improvement. (but not required before putting this code in). (In reply to comment #4) > Code looks fine. Hmmm... too bad nobody implements it. I guess it would be the > type of thing someone might implement if there was a performance complaint (on > the Mac). Can you think of a snippet that might show this? Something with lots > of lightweight children, and most of them off-screen? Maybe add it to the > CTable example's getChildren and try it with a large number of cells? (is > getChildren called for tables on the Mac? Or just > get[Visible]Rows/get[Visible]Columns/getCell?) It would be great to see a bench > that showed noticeable improvement. (but not required before putting this code > in). I'm not sure it's done for performance reasons -- my hunch is that if you had a table with a LOT of rows the user could have some kind of expectation as to how long it would take to scroll through them, or if there were a lot of elements in a graphic document, you could get a feel for how big of an image you were working with. I do agree it would be good to have CTable implement this just to verify that it's working properly, in any event. Fixed in HEAD and 3.6 branch > 2010 06 28. |