I want to use sceneBuilder for a javaFx application. I have a Package that is called testPac and inside that I have the folders as has been presented in figure 1;
I have one fxml file and its controller inside the view folder.
now, I don't know what I must use inside the controller box in sceneBuilder.
the content of view folder according to figure 2.
You just need to specify the fully-qualified classname, i.e. packagename.ClassName. So, if I understand your project structure correctly, your controller class is scaterChartController1 and it is in a package called testPac.view1,2. So your fx:controller attribute should have the value fx:controller = "testPac.view.scaterChartController".
In SceneBuilder you can set this in the "Controller" pane which is in the bottom left of the screen (expand it if necessary):
Footnotes:
You should follow proper naming conventions, so all class names should begin with an upper case letter. scaterChartController is not a proper class name according to the standard convention. Similarly, package names should be all lower case, so "a package called testPac" also violates the convention.
The package name is evident from the first line of code. I am assuming you have a package name of view, so the first line of code in the controller class will be
package testPac.view ;
Modify the fx:controller attribute accordingly if the package is different to that.
Related
According to https://www.zkoss.org/wiki/ZK_Component_Reference/Essential_Components/Button#Autodisable, I have customized our ZK app to enable autodisable for all buttons by specifying the following in the custom language addon:
<language-addon>
<component>
<component-name>button</component-name>
<extends>button</extends>
<property>
<property-name>autodisable</property-name>
<property-value>self</property-value>
</property>
</component>
It works fine for buttons defined in ZUL files but not for buttons defined in Java, for example when I have to display a button in each row of a table (listbox), and so I define the buttons in the renderer class.
I could also set the necessary functioning individually for a button:
myButton.setAutodisable("self");
but it would be nice to arrange it in a similar central way as for the normal buttons. How to achieve it?
Since you have access to the button class in Java, the simplest solution would be to create a ButtonExt (or any class name that makes sense in your project's name patterns), generate constructors based on the super class and add this.setAutodisable("self"); in the constructors (after super(...);)
This is basically what the zul parser does. The component config described in your post is just an instruction to tell the parser to always call newComponent.setAutodisable("self"); every time that it instantiate a button.
Since your ButtonExt will be extending the default button class, you can then just instantiate it in Java:
Button myButton = new ButtonExt();
and it will act as a standard button, with your extra initialization code.
I've edited the question to make what I want to obtain clearer.
Here's the original question:
I'm working on a class that inherits from Control which will be used in my View and includes some Dependency Properties.
One of these DPs is an IEnumerable(Of RfidTag) and will be bound to an ObservableCollection(Of RfidTag) inside the VM.
The class RfidTag is defined as public class in the same file where the VM's class resides.
The questions are:
1. is it a good practice to expose a VM-related class to a Control class?
2. is the VM source file a good place for the RfidTag class?
UPDATE 1
In my application logic (I think I could say in my Model) there is an event published throught an Eventaggregator. The event's payload is a List of ModelRfidTag (that is the model class).
My VM subscribes to this event and I made the RfidTag class to wrap my Model class and provides some additional properties related only to the VM.
When the event handler inside the VM is executed, it makes an ObservableCollection(Of RfidTag) bindable from the view.
Then in the View I've a bounch of my control instances like that
<c:RfidTagPresenter
TagPosition="1"
Collection="{Binding RfidTagList, Mode=OneWay}" />
Then in my RfidTagPresenter (the class that inherits from Control) I've a DP of type RfidTag (called RfidTagResult) that returns the object in the OC which has the Position property (property available inside the RfidTag class) equal to the value set by the TagPosition DP.
In this way, the ControlTemplate of the RfidTagPresenter can bind its elements to the desired object.
This is the simplification of what I want to make. In the actual application there are some other DPs on which the RfidTagResult selection is performed
UPDATE 2
After a bit of research, seem that I can solve one problem with an indexed property that return (in the get method) the object from the collection I want to bind.
However a problem still exist: My control need to have a DP of type of RfidTag so that the relative ControlTemplate can bind to the property declared in the RfidTag class.
So: Is it possible (read: a good practice) to have a DP of a type that is a VM related class?
In other words: Can a custom control know about the class type used by the VM?
I will try to go all over your question (if I miss something let me know) but first you should explain the purpose of binding a Collection in a control as a DP.
is it a good practice to expose a VM-related class to a Control class?
RfidTag, I suppose, is a Model. What you are really doing here is binding a Model in your control which go against the MVVM pattern. You should think about the next question... Do you really need all your RfidTag to be shown in the View ? If you need to show a name, an ID... you could just create an IEnumerable<string> as DP (which is correct) and then in your VM instead of an ObservableCollection<RfidTag> you would have an ObservableCollection<string>.
Some simple theory. In MVVM, VM adapts the Model to the View. So your VM should have everything that will be shown in your View.
is the VM source file a good place for the RfidTag class?
RfidTag is a Model so there's no better place for it :)
I have splitted my application into two main areas.
Part(A)
PartStashContainer(B)
The content of A should be set based on what user wants.
So basically i can have 1..N classes which could be used in Class URI of Part in application model.
I don't know if i should replace the whole Part(A) with new dynamically created Part(C) which has content i want, or i should somehow to modify the existing Part (call setContributionURI, or setObject methods on Part object?).
It does make more sense to me to modify the existing Part, because it is defined in Application model and therefore already describing the location where the content should be.
Possible solutions:
Modify the Part object so it "reload" its content based on new setup (But how? Can setContributionURI or setObject methods help?)
Remove the old Part and add dynamically on same place in Application model the new Part (using EModelService and EPartService).
other solution??
If you want to reuse the Part then do something like:
MPart part = find or inject your part
MyClass myClass = (MyClass)part.getObject();
... call a method of MyClass to change the contents
MyClass is the class you specify for the object in the application model. You should add a method to that to let you change the contents.
Don't try to call setObject, this is really only for use by Eclipse. I don't think setContributionURI would do anything after the part is created (but I am not sure).
If you want to use different classes for the different data then you really should use different Parts.
Is there a way to create a new class based on another which already exists in the project?
Ideally one could just make a copy of a group (which may inlude .h, .m -xib) and change whatever code on this copy to create a new class.
Currently I create a new group, create the new class with it's new name and then copy the code for these files - immediately renaming the old class name into the new class name
The alternative would be to do "Show in Finder" and create duplicates for the files, drag them back into xCode, create a new group and drag them there...
Is there some better way to do this?
ps in Eclipse there is even an explicit option in the menu for this purpose
Many thanks
I think you should use a subclass for that. Create a new Objective-C class, and choose your old class as the parent class.
Have a look a this, it may help you understand this principle if you're not familiar with it : http://www.techotopia.com/index.php/Objective-C_Inheritance
The concept of inheritance brings something of a real-world view to programming. It allows a class to be defined that has a certain set of characteristics (such as methods and instance variables) and then other classes to be created which are derived from that class. The derived class inherits all of the features of the parent class and typically then adds some features of its own.
I don't know what will happen to the xib file, but at least you can re-use your classes as much as you want !
I have a C# application that I am trying to re-create through the use of CodeDom. This application has four classes inside of it. If I were to go into this applications directory, I would find the project file (App.csproj), and if I were to start this project file, all four classes would load together. Furthermore, if I were to build this application, all four classes would build together.
My Question: How on earth can I create this functionality through the use of CodeDom?
I have sucessfully created one of the four classes using CodeDom, but how can I go about creating the next three classes (and linking them) to the first class that I already created?
I know this may sound confusing but I will explain more if necessary.
If the classes are in the same namespace you can add them all to one CodeNamespace object and generate the code from that.
If there in different namespaces you can add the namespace of the other Classes to your first class by adding the namespaces reference of the other class's to the namespace object you are working in:-
// Add the Namespace of the other class to the current namespace onject
defaultNameSpace.Imports.Add(new CodeNamespaceImport("Project.Namespace.Namespace"));
Where defaultNameSpace is a type of CodeNamespace. The first Class you have built is added to this CodeNamespace object as below and then the code is generated from that :-
defaultNameSpace.Types.Add(mainClass);
mainClass being a type of CodeTypeDeclaration.
Hope this helps.