Re: Best way to force a JComponent to repaint itself
zerg wrote:
Joshua Cranmer wrote:
zerg wrote:
I don't suppose you read the part of my earlier post where I
mentioned that inheritance of B from A can mean one or both of TWO
things?
* B is a kind of A
* B has reused code from A
No.
Yes.
If you want to reuse code, use composition. Don't hijack one of the
most fundamental principles of OOP.
I wholeheartedly agree, but others don't always follow that advice and I
take that into consideration when using others' classes.
This seems to be the core of the conundrum then. If you treat
inheritance as an is-a relationship, the documentation should be
searched for also in the superclasses. The fact that you *refused* to
acknowledge that the superclass could be a source of documentation
indicates that you've taking this consideration so far that you didn't
think to treat it as an is-a relationship.
I repeat: would a JButton work properly in an old, AWT-only Java
deployment?
Yes, provided you have the libraries to define JButton. AWT and Swing
mix seamlessly, modulo the different design styles.
import java.awt.*;
import javax.swing.*;
class Test {
public static void main(String... args) {
Frame frame = new Frame("Test frame");
frame.setSize(200,300);
JButton button = new JButton("Click me!");
frame.add(button);
frame.setVisible(true);
}
}
It stopped being about Java the instant somebody
made it about me.
It stopped being about Java when you stopped talking about Java. A
little trick for future reference: cut out any part that you think goes
too off-topic and don't mention that you've dropped it. That portion
will die off very quickly.
Because pricks are so common in newsgroups. "If you don't have anything
nice to say, don't say anything at all" is a piece of advice that you
would do well to familiarize yourself with.
*cough*
See, this is another way in
which you and those like you keep erring -- you assume that everyone but
you is a neophyte, or perhaps that everyone new to the NEWSGROUP is a
neophyte WITH JAVA.
It is much easier to assume that someone is a neophyte when no evidence
has been given to the contrary than the other way around; it is also
more correct. Likewise, we assume that people haven't bothered to go
look something up in the correct places unless they explain that they
have. Questions are very frequently answerable by one of the first 10
results on Google.
It's called "getting a taste of your own medicine". If you don't enjoy
it, stop dishing it out!
I can't recall a time where I snipped someone's response and then
complained that the response was worthless, with one exception being a
moment of sarcasm when I was in the midst of a thread with someone else
who did that *very heavily*. So it's not a taste of my own medicine.
Besides, I don't take medicine.
No. Nothing that I have said is wrong, and therefore you have no valid
"rebuttals" of anything that I have said. Anything that you claim is
such therefore is "nothing worthwhile" for the simple reason that it is
factually false.
"This is detailed knowledge" -> "No it's not, it's clearly explained on
this introductory page." If that's not a rebuttal, what is it?
See above. It is incorrect to even try to rebut me. Don't.
"JComponent doesn't override all of Component's methods" -> "It can't
because it's not feasible". If that's not a rebuttal, what is it?
when they are over the age of 18
Actually, I'm technically not *over* the age of 18. Which should go to
show that you shouldn't make any assumptions.
In other words, what drew ire was that he stood up for himself when
people were rude to him and cast aspersions about him in public. Well,
good for him, even if he took it to extremes.
This is what the threads were like:
*Twisted makes a point
Person A: No, I don't think that's valid because...
Twisted: [Snip insult from Person A]
No one was rude at the beginning. People only got rude when this had
gone for some time. Actually *read* what happened. It's centered mostly
in the thread "Java and avoiding piracy" (or something like that). Don't
talk to me about what happened with this one person until you actually
see what happened for yourself, instead of assuming what happened.
You clearly still have not learned. (See how you like being addressed in
such a manner!)
And don't clip context where I explain why I said "no."
I made the statement originally, you misinterpreted it. Which gives me
the right to explain more clearly how it was intended to be interpreted
it. I also have the right to be blunt in pointing out that the statement
was misinterpreted.
You counted the numbers absolutely
How the hell would you know? I didn't tell you anything about exactly
how I counted the numbers. In fact I did use percentages, rather than
absolute counts, contrary to your claim here.
And you made no indication that you did. I also just realized that
Andrew and Lew have both been the victims of a NewsMaestro spammer, but
I'll assume that you already accounted for that (they became such for
telling said spammer that c.l.j.p was not the place to advertise his
product).
then I will decide what
opinion of me you broadcast, and it will be "zerg is a great guy"!
Never have I found Godwin's Law so tempting.
One of the definitions of controversy: strife. Anyone who causes
strife -- by fragrantly violating the charter, by repeatedly ignoring
the flaws of posted algorithms -- is a poster of controversy.
But I was using "controversial" to mean "holder of controversial
opinions and beliefs". This paragraph of yours is, therefore, entirely
beside the point.
I was trying to tell you that you were using a different definition than
I had intended.
Furthermore, I will never escalate. You have been rude and condescending
to me, and outright accused me several times of various bad things;
Never have I called you rude or condescending. Never have I shouted at
you. You have assumed that I called you a neophyte (which isn't exactly
a bad thing) by implication only. The worst thing that I have said
implicitly is "lazy," which is quite frankly a much better attribute
than many of the things you have called me in this thread.
As for my earlier statement, "hurling abuse at people in public can not
serve any useful function and will generally only make things worse",
consider it a bit imprecise, and amended with "(except in response to
persistent abuse)".
It has been my experience that this is generally not the case.
Responding to abuse with abuse generally leads to... two people abusing
each other. Read the Twisted threads, you will find very, very deep
subthreads of people doing nothing but calling each other names. I don't
know how long you've been browsing newsgroups, but if it's for multiple
months or more, I'm surprised that you have that amendment.
(Yes, I know one option is simply to ignore the person who started the
abuse, but that isn't exactly a good idea if they have begun publicly
spouting nasty opinions of you, because then they'll simply be able to
continue doing so "behind your back" and get away with it, and THAT
certainly won't do you any good.)
I have waded deep into threads with loads of abuse hurled at me all with
the simple goal of passing on a nugget of information. I try to follow
the primary tenant of my religion, "Do onto others as you would have
them do unto you." If you read earlier history, you'll notice that I
have actually stood up for JSH, in the midst of a whirlwind of abuse, to
the disbelief of others (you'll have to look in sci.math as well, as
that's where his biggest torturers are).
So yes, just ignore a person. Even the most righteous people are
despised by some people. I learned long ago that trying to purposefully
direct public opinion of myself was a fruitless task. Just let your
actions speak for yourself, and let people form their own opinions. You
may think I'm some brutal bully secretly attempting to become the next
Pol Pot, but that doesn't bother me. You could shout that to the world
for all I care, it still won't bother me.
Besides, I don't feel one can really judge a person until one actually
gets the intimacy equivalent to sitting down and having a debate over
coffee or lunch. All preconceived notions are wrong, anyways.
--
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not
tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth