I read that the window that appears using the JFrame class is a Container with the predefined features (minimize, closing), but I found people who were not using the JFrame class but other classes (one of them the Container) which was far more hard.
Why do they do it that way? Is it because the JFrame class always has a predefined window that you can manipulate some aspects of it but the Container and the other classes give you more freedom of how you can create a window?
For an example to my question (I don't know if its real or not) in the JFrame class the close button always go to right to corner of the window but if I do it the other way you can put it everywhere you like. (If it can be answered with a yes or no).
So my qusetion is why they do it that way
There are two "main" reasons why. First is about overall good programming.
We tend to recommend avoiding extending from classes to which we are not adding any new functionality or repeatable features. If the whole reason for extending from JFrame is just so you can display some components, then it's really not a good choice or starting point.
JFrame is also a complex, compound component. That is, it's actually made up of a number of other layered components which work together to provide an overall experience.
*From How to Use Root Panes
This means that there is a lot of added complexity you'd have to be willing to manage if you extended from this class, a lot of overhead just to display a few components.
In principle, it's better to use composition over inheritance, which leads into the second point.
Extending from any class locks you into that classes use case. In the case of JFrame, you can only ever display what ever is managed by the class via a JFrame, there is no flexibility or entry point for re-usablility.
If, instead, you started with a base class of, say JPanel, you can add that to what ever container you want when ever you want, it increases the flexibility and re-usability of the class over all.
For an exaple to my question(i dont know if its real or not) in the JFrame class the close button always go to right to corner of the window but if i do it the other way you can put it everywhere you like.(If it can be answered with a yes or no)
Yes and no. The frame border is defined by the look and feel delegate, so you're not actually starting at the right place to begin with anyway.
Most look and feel delegates delegate the frame border to the native platform, in the case of Windows, yes, the close button is on the right, on Mac it's on the left.
In any case, it's better to support user expectations, placing the close button in an unusual place might make the UI "pretty", but diminishes the user experience - as a general guide line, don't diminish the user experience, no matter how awesome your program or UI, user's won't like you for it - but that is a (very broad) question for another day
Related
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
The community reviewed whether to reopen this question 1 year ago and left it closed:
Original close reason(s) were not resolved
Improve this question
I'm developing an application which displays images, and plays sounds from a database. I'm trying to decide whether or not to use a separate JFrame to add images to the database from the GUI.
I'm just wondering whether it is good practice to use multiple JFrame windows?
I'm just wondering whether it is good practice to use multiple JFrames?
Bad (bad, bad) practice.
User unfriendly: The user sees multiple icons in their task bar when expecting to see only one. Plus the side effects of the coding problems..
A nightmare to code and maintain:
A modal dialog offers the easy opportunity to focus attention on the content of that dialog - choose/fix/cancel this, then proceed. Multiple frames do not.
A dialog (or floating tool-bar) with a parent will come to front when the parent is clicked on - you'd have to implement that in frames if that was the desired behavior.
There are any number of ways of displaying many elements in one GUI, e.g.:
CardLayout (short demo.). Good for:
Showing wizard like dialogs.
Displaying list, tree etc. selections for items that have an associated component.
Flipping between no component and visible component.
JInternalFrame/JDesktopPane typically used for an MDI.
JTabbedPane for groups of components.
JSplitPane A way to display two components of which the importance between one or the other (the size) varies according to what the user is doing.
JLayeredPane far many well ..layered components.
JToolBar typically contains groups of actions or controls. Can be dragged around the GUI, or off it entirely according to user need. As mentioned above, will minimize/restore according to the parent doing so.
As items in a JList (simple example below).
As nodes in a JTree.
Nested layouts.
But if those strategies do not work for a particular use-case, try the following. Establish a single main JFrame, then have JDialog or JOptionPane instances appear for the rest of the free-floating elements, using the frame as the parent for the dialogs.
Many images
In this case where the multiple elements are images, it would be better to use either of the following instead:
A single JLabel (centered in a scroll pane) to display whichever image the user is interested in at that moment. As seen in ImageViewer.
A single row JList. As seen in this answer. The 'single row' part of that only works if they are all the same dimensions. Alternately, if you are prepared to scale the images on the fly, and they are all the same aspect ratio (e.g. 4:3 or 16:9).
The multiple JFrame approach has been something I've implemented since I began programming Swing apps. For the most part, I did it in the beginning because I didn't know any better. However, as I matured in my experience and knowledge as a developer and as began to read and absorb the opinions of so many more experienced Java devs online, I made an attempt to shift away from the multiple JFrame approach (both in current projects and future projects) only to be met with... get this... resistance from my clients! As I began implementing modal dialogs to control "child" windows and JInternalFrames for separate components, my clients began to complain! I was quite surprised, as I was doing what I thought was best-practice! But, as they say, "A happy wife is a happy life." Same goes for your clients. Of course, I am a contractor so my end-users have direct access to me, the developer, which is obviously not a common scenario.
So, I'm going to explain the benefits of the multiple JFrame approach, as well as myth-bust some of the cons that others have presented.
Ultimate flexibility in layout - By allowing separate JFrames, you give your end-user the ability to spread out and control what's on his/her screen. The concept feels "open" and non-constricting. You lose this when you go towards one big JFrame and a bunch of JInternalFrames.
Works well for very modularized applications - In my case, most of my applications have 3 - 5 big "modules" that really have nothing to do with each other whatsoever. For instance, one module might be a sales dashboard and one might be an accounting dashboard. They don't talk to each other or anything. However, the executive might want to open both and them being separate frames on the taskbar makes his life easier.
Makes it easy for end-users to reference outside material - Once, I had this situation: My app had a "data viewer," from which you could click "Add New" and it would open a data entry screen. Initially, both were JFrames. However, I wanted the data entry screen to be a JDialog whose parent was the data viewer. I made the change, and immediately I received a call from an end-user who relied heavily on the fact that he could minimize or close the viewer and keep the editor open while he referenced another part of the program (or a website, I don't remember). He's not on a multi-monitor, so he needed the entry dialog to be first and something else to be second, with the data viewer completely hidden. This was impossible with a JDialog and certainly would've been impossible with a JInternalFrame as well. I begrudgingly changed it back to being separate JFrames for his sanity, but it taught me an important lesson.
Myth: Hard to code - This is not true in my experience. I don't see why it would be any easier to create a JInternalFrame than a JFrame. In fact, in my experience, JInternalFrames offer much less flexibility. I have developed a systematic way of handling the opening & closing of JFrames in my apps that really works well. I control the frame almost completely from within the frame's code itself; the creation of the new frame, SwingWorkers that control the retrieval of data on background threads and the GUI code on EDT, restoring/bringing to front the frame if the user tries to open it twice, etc. All you need to open my JFrames is call a public static method open() and the open method, combined with a windowClosing() event handles the rest (is the frame already open? is it not open, but loading? etc.) I made this approach a template so it's not difficult to implement for each frame.
Myth/Unproven: Resource Heavy - I'd like to see some facts behind this speculative statement. Although, perhaps, you could say a JFrame needs more space than a JInternalFrame, even if you open up 100 JFrames, how many more resources would you really be consuming? If your concern is memory leaks because of resources: calling dispose() frees all resources used by the frame for garbage collection (and, again I say, a JInternalFrame should invoke exactly the same concern).
I've written a lot and I feel like I could write more. Anyways, I hope I don't get down-voted simply because it's an unpopular opinion. The question is clearly a valuable one and I hope I've provided a valuable answer, even if it isn't the common opinion.
A great example of multiple frames/single document per frame (SDI) vs single frame/multiple documents per frame (MDI) is Microsoft Excel. Some of MDI benefits:
it is possible to have a few windows in non rectangular shape - so they don't hide desktop or other window from another process (e.g. web browser)
it is possible to open a window from another process over one Excel window while writing in second Excel window - with MDI, trying to write in one of internal windows will give focus to the entire Excel window, hence hiding window from another process
it is possible to have different documents on different screens, which is especially useful when screens do not have the same resolution
SDI (Single-Document Interface, i.e., every window can only have a single document):
MDI (Multiple-Document Interface, i.e., every window can have multiple documents):
I'd like to counter the "not user friendly" argument with an example that I have just been involved with.
In our application we have a main window where the users run various 'programs' as separate tabs. As much as possible we have tried to keep our application to this single window.
One of the 'programs' they run presents a list of reports that have been generated by the system, and the user can click on an icon on each line to pop open a report viewer dialog. This viewer is showing the equivalent of the portrait/landscape A4 page(s) of the report, so the users like this window to be quite big, almost filling their screens.
A few months ago we started getting requests from our customers to make these report viewer windows modeless, so that they could have multiple reports open at the same time.
For some time I resisted this request as I did not think this was a good solution. However, my mind was changed when I found out how the users were getting around this 'deficiency' of our system.
They were opening a viewer, using the 'Save As' facility to save the report as a PDF to a specific directory, using Acrobat Reader to open the PDF file, and then they would do the same with the next report. They would have multiple Acrobat Readers running with the various report outputs that they wanted to look at.
So I relented and made the viewer modeless. This means that each viewer has a task-bar icon.
When the latest version was released to them last week, the overwhelming response from them is that they LOVE it. It's been one of our most popular recent enhancements to the system.
So you go ahead and tell your users that what they want is bad, but ultimately it won't do you any favours.
SOME NOTES:
It seems to be best practice to use JDialog's for these modeless windows
Use the constructors that use the new ModalityType rather than the boolean modal argument. This is what gives these dialogs the task-bar icon.
For modeless dialogs, pass a null parent to the constructor, but locate them relative to their 'parent' window.
Version 6 of Java on Windows has a bug which means that your main window can become 'always on top' without you telling it. Upgrade to version 7 to fix this
Make an jInternalFrame into main frame and make it invisible. Then you can use it for further events.
jInternalFrame.setSize(300,150);
jInternalFrame.setVisible(true);
It's been a while since the last time i touch swing but in general is a bad practice to do this. Some of the main disadvantages that comes to mind:
It's more expensive: you will have to allocate way more resources to draw a JFrame that other kind of window container, such as Dialog or JInternalFrame.
Not user friendly: It is not easy to navigate into a bunch of JFrame stuck together, it will look like your application is a set of applications inconsistent and poorly design.
It's easy to use JInternalFrame This is kind of retorical, now it's way easier and other people smarter ( or with more spare time) than us have already think through the Desktop and JInternalFrame pattern, so I would recommend to use it.
Bad practice definitely. One reason is that it is not very 'user-friendly' for the fact that every JFrame shows a new taskbar icon. Controlling multiple JFrames will have you ripping your hair out.
Personally, I would use ONE JFrame for your kind of application. Methods of displaying multiple things is up to you, there are many. Canvases, JInternalFrame, CardLayout, even JPanels possibly.
Multiple JFrame objects = Pain, trouble, and problems.
I think using multiple Jframes is not a good idea.
Instead we can use JPanels more than one or more JPanel in the same JFrame.
Also we can switch between this JPanels. So it gives us freedom to display more than on thing in the JFrame.
For each JPanel we can design different things and all this JPanel can be displayed on the single JFrameone at a time.
To switch between this JPanels use JMenuBar with JMenuItems for each JPanelor 'JButtonfor eachJPanel`.
More than one JFrame is not a good practice, but there is nothing wrong if we want more than one JFrame.
But its better to change one JFrame for our different needs rather than having multiple JFrames.
If the frames are going to be the same size, why not create the frame and pass the frame then as a reference to it instead.
When you have passed the frame you can then decide how to populate it. It would be like having a method for calculating the average of a set of figures. Would you create the method over and over again?
It is not a good practice but even though you wish to use it you can use the singleton pattern as its good. I have used the singleton patterns in most of my project its good.
First of all, I would like you to know that I'm new in Java world; so please forgive me if my question is basic.
I'm working with a team, and we are trying to create a browser using Java.
To begin with, we are watching some tutorials, and all of them begin with a class that extends JFrame. What does this JFrame do?
This could easily be answered in a 10 second Google search... But to answer your question anyway, a JFrame is an extension of java.awt.Frame, which displays a graphical window to the user, in which you can house components and graphics on.
These components range from JButton's JLabel's all the way to Menu bars, etc.
Also, extending a JFrame is never a good idea. It works fine, but for the best code readability, and usage, do not do it. There are plenty of reasons why, and they are explained thoroughly here:
Why shouldn't you extend JFrame and other components?
Extract:
Generally speaking, extending the component tends to be done strictly to use the component. This severely limits your options in unnecessary ways in terms of design, so that your classes can't extend different classes, you can't hide the JFrame's methods causing it to be more difficult to maintain and easier to trigger unexpected bugs when using the class.
More can be found below in the links provided:
JavaDoc for JFrame
How to use a JFrame
I'm trying to get a grasp on a couple concepts. Lets imagine you have a JFrame and in that JFrame there are two panels, we'll say left_half and right_half. If I click a button in right_half, I want something to change in left_half. The issue is that the right half doesn't know the left half exists. So, you could tell the Frame, but technically neither panel knows the Frame exists either, right? The Frame can change the panels, but panels can't change the Frame, or so it seems to me.
So, I pass a reference to the Frame into the panels. Now the right_half can call Frame.setVariable(data) and the Frame can, from that same method, say left_half.setStuff(data). That just seems wrong to me and I have been looking for a way to do it without passing references up and down the hierarchy.
Next, someone says "That's why Observable exists!!" Cool, I think to myself. I then found many confusing examples of how to use Observable that didn't help at all. Finally I see this one, which makes sense.
http://www.javaquizplayer.com/blogposts/blogpost7.html
However, it has this: "observable.addObserver(mainWindow);" mainWindow is the equivalent of Frame in my example above, and it had to pass a reference to attach the Obserable to! So even with Observable, I have to pass references down the hierarchy?
It just seems wrong. If it's not wrong, that's fine... I can do it this way. However, my question once all that back-story is finished is simply this: how are you supposed to pass data between two panels? I'm okay with abstract answers if they're in plain language, I'm okay with code samples if they're short and easy to follow. I'm not a pro Java coder, I can't just search through 29 API pages and 1400 lines of code and just suddenly understand how it works... yet. I'll get there.
The observable pattern (in the form of event listeners) is OK and is good practice. You see, even though RightPanel knows someone might be listening to all its events, it does not know who is listening. Well, technically, it could go through all its listeners and use reflection to find out who they are; now, that would be bad practice.
As it is, RightPanel knows someone might be listening to it, and that's all. Components are always aware someone might be listening, since the whole Swing is based on it. What matters is that RightPanel compiles without LeftPanel (or frame), and is completely decoupled from it, except via the listener interface. Not only cool, but standard.
As a side note, your class structure does not have to mirror your nesting panel hierarchy. Depending on what you are doing, it may be entirely fine to control behavior of both left and right panels from inner classes within Frame. (Personally, I'd use a JPanel, not a JFrame, since it allows for more flexibility, but this can be easily refactored). Otherwise, you risk splitting your View/Controller into too many closely coupled classes, and that would violate encapsulation and cause a lot of boilerplate code. Normally, I don't code big fat classes and try to refactor them into smaller ones; Swing is usually an exception. Better one big fat class than a maze of densely coupled classes. Unless of course you have a reusable component or some piece of functionality that can be clearly and intuitively decoupled; not just a couple of buttons or checkboxes that have no meaning in and of themselves. The simple fact that some subcomponents are situated within a certain panel in a component tree should not be a major factor IMHO.
For that matter, I usually don't nest JPanels; I use MigLayout and make all components into siblings. Matter of taste! I'd just encourage you to check out MiGLayout first and see whether you like it.
I'm sorry this is probably way too basic to be on here, but it's a subject I've been struggling with for about a month now and I don't know where else to go (as far as I know there is no "noob overflow", lol).
I'm trying to create a class that would:
1. put an image on a window (a JFrame, JPanel or other container)
2. be able to support keyboard and mouse listeners
3. could have multiple instances in the same container
So anyway I've tried all the usual places - Google, YouTube, the official Java site (sorry forgot the URL) and of course here on Stack Overflow - but haven't been able to find anything even remotely similar to what I'm trying to do.
Of course, I've also considered the possiblity that maybe it can't be done at all. There doesn't seem to be any kind of standard "JImage" or "JGraphic" that works like JButton or JLabel, and for whatever reason graphics requires a completely different list of (extremely involved) processes and procedures. As an example, in this post: How to "really" draw images in a Java app - it took me 60+ lines of code and 2 classes to just come close. That project didn't work in the end because for some reason it would only let me create one instance (even it you created 2-4 in the main method, it would only display the last one you told it to add).
But anyway, assuming that I'm not trying to "re-invent the wheel" here and it is actually possible (in Java), does anyone have an idea as to how (or at least know of a better site to study it)? Unfortunately most of the sites I've visited tend to assume you know all the inner workings of images (I know what a pixel is but that's about it - Buffers, Rastars etc. are still beyond me). It would be absolutely outstanding if there were a site that would explain it in layman's terms, if such a site exists. Thanks in advance.
Just use a plain old JLabel.
Regarding your requirements:
put an image on a window (a JFrame, JPanel or other container).
You can give a JLabel an ImageIcon of the image of interest and it will display it. This can then be easily placed in any other container such as a JPanel or JFrame.
be able to support keyboard and mouse listeners
Any component that extends JComponent, such as a JLabel allows for use of MouseListener, MouseMotionListener and can listen for keyboard input via Key Bindings.
could have multiple instances in the same container
You can add as many as you'd like to any container. Just be cognizant and respectful of the layout managers in use.
There have been many times on StackOverflow where a user asks a question like this...
I have a main JPanel that contains a child JPanel. When the user clicks a
button, the child JPanel should change to a different JPanel. How can I
achieve this.
More often than not, the user has actually tried to implement this problem, but can't get it working.
Whenever I answer this question, I tell them to do something like this (put simply)...
JPanel myFrame = new JPanel();
myFrame.remove(oldPanel);
myFrame.add(newPanel);
I see this as quite a legitimate answer, and I personally have used this in many of my own Java projects without problem. However, I always get downvotes for my answer, and everyone just says "Use a CardLayout".
So my question is, why is everyone so fascinated with CardLayout, to the point where my answer deserves a downvote? Why should I choose to use a CardLayout rather than adding/removing panels using my code above?
As a further question, would you still be suggesting CardLayout for interfaces that have dynamic JPanels. For example, most of my programs implement a custom plugin framework where there could be many hundreds of JPanels, but I only load and display the panels as they are actually required. For the normal use of the program, most of the panels would never actually be loaded or required. For this type of scenario, would my coding approach be the best solution, as I understand that CardLayout would require me to actually create all of the JPanels even though most will never be used?
With CardLayout, it's easier to have loose coupling (though not impossible with roll your own)
With CardLayout, the preferredSize of the card-holder is that of the largest card it holds.
CardLayout is harder to fark-up, and allows almost trivial contiguous component swapping its next() and prev() methods.
You can easily associate the desired component with a constant -- no need to have to create a Map<String, Component> for this purpose as it's already there for you. I've not infrequently used enums for this.
No need to remember to call repaint() and revalidate() when swapping components.
It's built for and allows for easy re-use of components.
CardLayout has been thoroughly tested and proven to work. It correctly acquires the component-tree lock and performs component validation in order to ensure that nothing can go wrong. Your solution, while it may work most of the time, will fail under certain circumstances.
This all boils to reinventing the wheel: Why would you want to when such a time-tested class is already available?