Community
Participate
Working Groups
Build Identifier: M20100909-0800 The StringFieldEditor is often used as a base of refined editors, like IntegerFieldEditor. We created our corresponding DoubleFieldEditor based on this class as well. These derived classes typically need to invoke the default constructor of StringFieldEditor because otherwise they can't properly override initialization code. To support this idiom, StringFieldEditor provides several setters that must be invoked very early, like setValidateStrategy setEmptyStringAllowed setErrorMessage Unfortunately, this editor misses to provide a setter for the internal property 'widthInChars' corresponding to the 'width' parameter of the non-default c'tors. This is a pitty, because these derived classes cannot take advantage of the default implementation of doFillIntoGrid where this parameter is used. On the other hand, sub-classes are *required* to invoke this super class method, so we are in a bad situation here. It seems to me that a very simple fix would be that StringFieldEditor should provide a public or protected setter setWidthInChars (alternatively: setTextWidthInChars) that allows super classes to configure this customization point as well. Reproducible: Always
This bug hasn't had any activity in quite some time. Maybe the problem got resolved, was a duplicate of something else, or became less pressing for some reason - or maybe it's still relevant but just hasn't been looked at yet. If you have further information on the current state of the bug, please add it. The information can be, for example, that the problem still occurs, that you still want the feature, that more information is needed, or that the bug is (for whatever reason) no longer relevant. -- The automated Eclipse Genie.
(In reply to Eclipse Genie from comment #1) > If you have further information on the current state of the bug, please add > it. The information can be, for example, that the problem still occurs, that > you still want the feature, that more information is needed, or that the bug > is (for whatever reason) no longer relevant. The issue still exists. I'm interested in providing a fix, but I'm now on vacations for two weeks.
