Why MetalSplitPaneDivider is not a public class?

Dear All,
The MetalSplitPaneDivider is not a public class because of that, I am not able to extend it to give a custom implementation. My requirement is that, whenever the leftButton is pressed, it should not go the 0 position, instead I have to have a control over this. But since, MetalSplitPaneDivider is not public I am not able to do this. I could achieve the same in BasicSplitPaneDivider, MotifSplitPaneDivider and WindowsSplitPaneDivider. Is there any way by which I could achieve this in MetalSplitPaneDivider? Is this a bug or an intended one?
Awaiting for your valuable respones. Thanks in advance!
Best Regards,
Amudhan.

Are you trying to accomplish the same effect as JSplitPane.setOneTouchExpandable( false ) ?

Similar Messages

Why it is necessary that public class name should same as filename in java

hi,
why it is necessary that public class name should same as filename in java.
As I know that it is a convention, but I want the information why this convention is made.
thanx.

user13445117 wrote:
but suppose if i am creating a java file with default access modifire then we do not need to save the file name as a class name.So, your question is "Why does the rule about top-level classes being in a file of the same name apply +only+ to public classes"?
If it were applied to all classes, then we could never have two top-level classes in the same file. Doing that is generally not a good idea, but it might be useful from time to time. EJP already told you why it applies to public classes, and, since these are the most common by far, it's a fair compromise that it apply to them but not to other classes.
Was this the reason the original designers did it that way 15 or so years ago? Don't know, don't care, but it's one plausible explanation. Maybe it was just a balance between simplicity and clarity on the one hand, and flexibility on the other.
It's certainly not something I can see caring that much about, unless you're doing an in-depth history on Java, or writing an in-depth treatise on computer language and compiler theory.

Error: "Could not resolve [public class] to a component implementation

Here's another clueless newbie question! :-(
I define a public class "DynamicTextArea" at the top of the file, and get the compiler error message "Could not resolve <DynamicTextArea> to a component implementation" at the bottom of the same file.
Clearly, I don't understand something very basic.
(The code between the commenrted asterisks was originally in a separate package file, which I couldn't get either mxmlc or FlexBuilder to find, so rather than fight that issue now, I moved it into the same file.)
Here's the file:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<mx:Application xmlns:mx="http://www.adobe.com/2006/mxml"
>

    <mx:Script>
    <![CDATA[
import flash.events.Event;
import mx.controls.TextArea;
public class DynamicTextArea extends TextArea{
    public function DynamicTextArea(){
      super();
      super.horizontalScrollPolicy = "off";
      super.verticalScrollPolicy = "off";
      this.addEventListener(Event.CHANGE, adjustHeightHandler);
    private function adjustHeightHandler(event:Event):void{
      trace("textField.getLineMetrics(0).height: " + textField.getLineMetrics(0).height);
      if(height <= textField.textHeight + textField.getLineMetrics(0).height){
        height = textField.textHeight;
        validateNow();
    override public function set text(val:String):void{
      textField.text = val;
      validateNow();
      height = textField.textHeight;
      validateNow();
    override public function set htmlText(val:String):void{
      textField.htmlText = val;
      validateNow();
      height = textField.textHeight;
      validateNow();
    override public function set height(value:Number):void{
      if(textField == null){
        if(height <= value){
          super.height = value;
      }else{
        var currentHeight:uint = textField.textHeight + textField.getLineMetrics(0).height;
        if (currentHeight<= super.maxHeight){
          if(textField.textHeight != textField.getLineMetrics(0).height){
            super.height = currentHeight;
        }else{
            super.height = super.maxHeight;
    override public function get text():String{
        return textField.text;
    override public function get htmlText():String{
        return textField.htmlText;
    override public function set maxHeight(value:Number):void{
      super.maxHeight = value;
    ]]>
</mx:Script>

     <mx:Script>
    <![CDATA[
      import mx.controls.Alert;
      private var str:String = "This text will be long enough to trigger " +
        "the TextArea to increase its height.";
      private var htmlStr:String = "This <b>text</b> will be <font color='#00FF00'>long enough</font> to trigger " +
        "the TextArea to increase its height.";
      private function setLargeText():void{
        txt1.text = str;
        txt2.text = str;
        txt3.text = str;
        txt4.text = str;
        txt5.htmlText = htmlStr;
        txt6.htmlText = htmlStr;
        txt7.htmlText = htmlStr;
        txt8.htmlText = htmlStr;
    ]]>
</mx:Script>
<DynamicTextArea id="txt1" width="300" height="14"/>
<DynamicTextArea id="txt2" width="300" height="20"/>
<DynamicTextArea id="txt3" width="300" height="28"/>
<DynamicTextArea id="txt4" width="300" height="50"/>
<DynamicTextArea id="txt5" width="300" height="14"/>
<DynamicTextArea id="txt6" width="300" height="20"/>
<DynamicTextArea id="txt7" width="300" height="28"/>
<DynamicTextArea id="txt8" width="300" height="50"/>
<mx:Button label="Set Large Text" click="setLargeText();"/>
</mx:Application>
     Thanks for any insight you can provide!
Harvey

Gordon:
    As you've noted, there were multiple misunderstandings.
    Some are due to references in the language which are different from uses in pre-existing languages.
    Take "name spaces". They look like URLs but they're not. One of the first errors I made when starting Flex was to try to browse to http://www.adobe.com/2006/mxml. I figured that it would have some description of the language. But it didn't. In spite of LOOKING like a URL, it doesn't point to anything; it's really just an arbitrary magic incantation, like "Open Sesame".
    But, then when I wanted to use my OWN namespace, I find that it's NOT arbitrary, and does have to point to something, but it's still not a URL. The "AHA" moment was when Michael told me that "*" means "look in this directory for a file with the name later named in an import statement, but not named here". And if the file was in subfolder "X" I'd have to use "X.*", while if it were a URL I'd use slash instead of dot, but never an asterisk.
    When the language syntax is so contrary to the expectations of people coming from a declarative language or web programming background, I think it is important to explicitly address the differences and disabuse them of their preconceptions. I think the same should apply to the ways in which ActionScript differs from ECMAScript.
    Another problem adding to my confusion is the habit of naming variables with the names of keywords but with capitalization changes. Not only does that set readers up for subtle "gotchas", but makes it unclear which names are truly arbitrary, and which are required by the compiler.
It might be a good idea to have a convention of an identifiable format for user variables. Many authors use names like myButton for that purpose.
    It would also be helpful if printed text could simulate the syntax coloring of the better editors, or at least have more in-source comments saying exactly what each line does. (Or both)
    Another aid to understanding would be to provide a reference to the alternative (MXML or AS) way of doing anything, whenever you demonstrate one of the ways.
    I find that the emphasis on using FlexBuilder distracts from a sense of what is really going on behind the scenes. E,g.: If FlexBuilder automatically sets up the folder structure, I don't learn to do it myself. I like to work at the code level, so when something goes wrong I don't have to worry about what level it went wrong at.
    Also, not everyone is willing to drop $600 or $250 BEFORE they've learned whether they even like Flex. Your tutorials are, by definition, addressed to newcomers who may well not yet have committed to the expense of FlexBuilder. So more emphasis on using mxmlc would be nice. It would also be helpful to discuss how to use local servers, like Tomcat, during the development stage.
    Thanks for asking my opinion. I'm afraid that my 40 years of programming experience may make it harder for me to adapt to this new style of programming than it would be for a kid with a tabula rasa. But, it looks like it'll be fun once I get over the hump!
Harvey

Why IE5 could not find applet class but Netscape can ?

Hi,
I have an applet which is running fine on Netscripts6,
But not on IE5.
<APPLET codebase="http://10.1.1.1/demo/" code="ClientApplet.class" HEIGHT=300 WIDTH=300>
<PARAM NAME="relay" VALUE="1">
I have all class files under demo directory(the same directory as html file).
IE5.0 still could not find applet class but Netscript can.

are you sure its failing to load your classes or is it failing to load a class you are using?
Remember IE only uses things from 1.1 so simple things like component.getHeight() does not work you have to use size().height
Its woth enabling the java console and viewing the exact problem.

Why WLS do not refresh the class in CLASSPATH?

as title, and I have set development mode.

Hi,
due to classloader hierarchies, classes on the system classpath can not
be refreshed (HotDeployment). If you want to use HotDeployment, you will
have to load your application (and classes) through a WAR or EAR file.
Hope that helps,
Nils
airwing wrote:
>
as title, and I have set development mode.--
============================
[email protected]

Why can i not get the class javax/swing/UImanager from installanywhere??

I use Installanywhere to pack my program,but when i double-click the short-cut,it says no class found :javax/swing/UImanage.
anybody can tell what happened?
thanks.

who can help me ? none want to help me.

Public class name same as filename

Every book I've read stated that if you have a public class declared in the source file, then you have to name the file the same as the class name. However, none of the book explain why, can anyone tell me about this?

Not all public classes need to have the same name as the file that contains them -- only top-level public classes. Public nested classes can have a name that's different from the filename.
Also, not only do top-level public classes need to have the same name as the file that contains them, but the names of the package and the directory structure must match as well.
This is done simply so that if you see a class named com.mycompany.mypackage.MyClass referred to somewhere, you know that the source code is in the file com/mycompany/mypackage/MyClass.java. Isn't that helpful? ;-)

Public class

Hi,
I want to know why the name of a public class and the name of the file containing the class should have the same name.

It makes maintenance and debugging easier. Might make class loading easier and/or more efficient also.

Why zero is assigned for not a public holiday in public holiday class

why zero is assigned for not a public holiday in public holiday class

Are you trying to accomplish the same effect as JSplitPane.setOneTouchExpandable( false ) ?

Jar file could not find main class.. I cant see why?

I have read loads of tutorials on this and it should be very straight forward but i STILL cant make a working jar file of my program.. please see if you can see anything wrong with what im doing..
my program is one .java file that compiles perfectly, and is runnable both through eclipse and by using the command prompt.. i made a jar file using both eclipse and the command prompt, and neither worked.. every time i run it by double clicking it i get the error "could not find main class, program will exit". here is the contents of my jar:
CorePackage\IPEmailer.class
CorePackage\IPEmailer$1.class
CorePackage\IPEmailer$SMTPAuthenticator.class
META-INF\MANIFEST.MF
the MANIFEST.MF file contains:
Manifest-Version: 1.0
Class-path: .
Created-By: 1.6.0_02 (Sun Microsystems Inc.)
Main-Class: CorePackage.IPEmailer
(yes there is a blank line at the end)
the class mentioned in 'Main-Class' has a main method that looks like this:
public static void main(String[] args) {
    // TODO Auto-generated method stub
    new IPEmailer();
}the program uses 2 external jar files:
activation.jar
mail.jar
and reads a file called:
ipemailer.ini
and writes a file called:
ip.txt
the program has no GUI and is intended to run 'silently' in the background
please help me understand what is wrong with this

package CorePackage;
import javax.mail.*;
import javax.mail.Authenticator;
import javax.mail.PasswordAuthentication;
import javax.mail.internet.*;
import java.util.*;
import java.io.*;
import java.net.*;
public class IPEmailer implements Runnable{
      * @param args
     String recipientsinput[]={""};
     String subject;
     String body;
     String server;
     String user;
     String pass;
     String from;
     String urlString = "http://www.whatismyip.org";
     String currentIP;
     String ipFromFile;
     boolean webFailed;
     long interval = 900000; //15 mins
     long oldInterval;
     Thread t = new Thread(this);
     public static void main(String[] args) {
          // TODO Auto-generated method stub
          new IPEmailer();
     public IPEmailer(){
                     ..........etccould the problem be that the class is a thread? i cant see why it would be, but ive never made a jar where the main class also 'implements runnable'

Why is the name of java file is same as public class?

hello friends
why we need to assign same name to .java file as the name of public class in .java file? while its not necessary for the class having no modifier?

This question has been asked several times. Serch the forum.
x

Only one public class - why???

Hi
I have come across this statement many places -
"There can be only one Top-Level 'public' class in
a java source file which should have same name as that
of the fore mentioned class."
I know that the compiler searches for the class
with same name as that of the file that is passed to
the compiler.I am also aware that a Java source compiles
smoothly with One or None Top-Level 'public' class,
but I fail to comprehend this -
Why can there be only one TOP-LEVEL 'public' class
in a Java Source file?
The importance of 'TOP-LEVEL' is as important as
any thing else, as you yourself check that a Nested
class within an Enclosing class can be 'public' along
with someother Top-Level 'public' class in the program
compiles smoothly unlike having TWO Top-Level 'public'
classes in same file.
I have found no reason supporting this statement in any
of the refernces I have checked out.Ppl I have asked told
me that it is so coz Java Spec say so.
Is there an better answer to my question?
Thanx in advance, appretiate it.
Regards
Pradeepto

I have found no reason supporting this statement in
in any
of the refernces I have checked out.Ppl I have asked
told
me that it is so coz Java Spec say so.I can tell you that anybody who says its because the Java spec says so, is wrong - the Java spec does not say so.
It is a limitation of Sun's javac compiler, which many other compilers exhibit as well. I don't know the full formal reasoning behind it (and would be interested in knowing if you find a good answer), but I assume it simply has to do with finding classes without having to load everything on your classpath.
Whether other compilers are purposely acting the same way as javac, or whether it is some sort of performance optimisation that most vendors feel is worthwhile, I couldn't say.
I don't see what you're saying about top-level and nested classes. Although you can declare a public nested class inside a non-public top-level class, the nested class is not actually publicly visible, by virue of its enclosing class not being publicly visible.

Why public class name should be same as the java file name

Hi,
I would like to know, why public class name should be same as the its java file name. Iam in the process of finding the answer to this question. Can someone help me out in finding the explanation.
Thanks in advance,
Manoj

This is a requirement of the Java reference compiler released by Sun. I have used compilers that did not require this, but most seem to follow the reference compiler (which is a very good idea). I am NOT sure if this is specified in the Java Language Specification. Some of the other regulars who are more familiar with the JLS than I may be able to tell you.
? {?

Why do we need public classes?

I read that a public class is more visible than a default (non-public) class as the latter is merely "package-visible". However, it appears that even if a class (c in package p) is not declared to be public, it can still be accessed by:
1) p.c
2) import p.c
So what is the use of declaring a class to be public? Why can't we just write:
class c {...}
every time for every class without the modifier public.
Can someone show me an example that illustrates the difference between a public class and a default class?

I read that a public class is more visible than a
default (non-public) class as the latter is merely
"package-visible". However, it appears that even if a
class (c in package p) is not declared to be public,
it can still be accessed by:
1) p.c
2) import p.c
How does that appear so?
Trying to do it the compiler says that "p.c is not public in p; cannot be accessed from outside package" and does not generate a class file.

Why only one public class in a source file?

why we have to write only one public class in a source file?

PhHein wrote:
Because the JLS says so.It does?
From section 7.6 of the JLS (third edition):
When packages are stored in a file system (§7.2.1), the host system may choose to enforce the restriction that it is a compile-time error if a type is not found in a file under a name composed of the type name plus an extension (such as .java or .jav) if either of the following is true:* The type is referred to by code in other compilation units of the package in which the type is declared.
* The type is declared public (and therefore is potentially accessible from code in other packages).
This restriction implies that there must be at most one such type per compilation unit. This restriction makes it easy for a compiler for the Java programming language or an implementation of the Java virtual machine to find a named class within a package; for example, the source code for a public type wet.sprocket.Toad would be found in a file Toad.java in the directory wet/sprocket, and the corresponding object code would be found in the file Toad.class in the same directory.
>
To my mind, it's strongly recommending, rather than mandating, this practice. All academic of course, merely shifting the answer from "Because the JLS says so" to "Because pretty much all Java compilers say so". I don't know of any that don't enforce this, but of course, that doesn't mean they don't exist

Why MetalSplitPaneDivider is not a public class?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for