I'm working on a game project. I created a GUI class and I want to create an instance of it for each player of the game. So each player will have one screen of the game.
Some information will be displayed on a specific player screen and some will be common. To display common informations, I created a static JLabel in which I put an icon. But I have a problem, the icon only appears on one of the screens.
Why does this happen?
Short answer: you can't. A basic rule of the Swing library is that a component will only be displayed in one and only one container, usually the last container that the component was added to.
The longer answer: you don't want to. You want to structure your program in such a way that the program's model, its logical underpinnings, is well separated from its view, the GUI itself. So what you want to do is have each GUI element share the same model, and use this information to create its own unique view. This has advantages as well, since if a player wants to display elements in a different perspective or point of view, they can do this without affecting what the other players see.
Side note: note that a single ImageIcon can be shared and viewed in multiple separate locations of your GUI since it is not a Swing component, but the JLabel can't be viewed in multiple locations.
Side note 2: Be sure to read: The Use of Multiple JFrames: Good or Bad Practice?, as this contains information pertinent to your program structure.
Side note 3, regarding:
To display common informations, I created a static JLabel...
I would avoid using static fields if at all possible. While this is fine to do in small simple toy programs, it does not scale well since the more static fields you use, the greater the risk of increasing the coupling of your code, and thus increasing its (cyclomatic) complexity, and thus increasing its risk of having hard to cure bugs. Follow good OOP practices by hiding your information, increasing your class cohesion and reducing code coupling, and you'll be a happy coder with cleaner, easier to debug and enhance programs.
Related
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
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.
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.
I have an application that is a Maths Game for kids. Since I'm in college, I've usually only had a god object for all my past projects but for this applciation I've split my code into multiple classes:
MathsGame.java: main class which initialises components and constructs and controls the UI.
DiffScreen.java: contains methods for use on the difficulty selection screen.
GameScreen.java: contains methods for use on the game screen.
EndGameScreen.java: contains methods for use on the end game screen.
MigJPanel.java: extends JPanel and sets layout to MigLayout and adds a matte border.
Each screen that the 3 XScreen classes control is simply an instance of MigJPanel and screens are switched to using a CardPanel container JPanel.
I'm wondering how I can divide my code to each class so that they are properly abstracted but I'm not entirely sure how to approach this.
Should my 3 screen classes be extending from my MigJPanel so these then can be instantiated?
So instead of having my DiffScreen, GameScreen, and EndGameScreen classes solely containing methods related to each screen which are then called from MathsGame, each screen will control itself within its own class.
If yes to the previous question, should the UI components for each screen be made inside that screen's class?
At the moment, all components for each of the three screens are created in my MathsGame constructor. This makes the connection between a screen and the class which 'controls' (I use this word very lightly at the moment) it even further apart. So each screen is just an instance of MigJPanel whose components are constructed in MathsGame. The only relation the EndGameScreen class—for example—has to the End Game screen is that when the MathsGame causes the End Game Screen to be displayed, anything done there makes a method in EndGameScreen be called from MathsGame.
I hope I explained myself well. If not, leave a comment and I'll clarify. Any help would be greatly appreciated!
Yes
Yes.
Focus on self containment and maintain areas of responsibility. It is the responsibility of each UI screen to manage it's content, no one else, in fact, you should guard against allowing unrestricted modification to these components and provide access only through managed methods indirectly (setters and getters), which allow the modification of the properties you want to be changed, and not simply providing the component via a getter, this prevents problems with people removing components you don't want removed, for example.
You could also use interfaces to maintain common functionality if required, so if the MathsGame really only wants to deal with a certain amount of the information/functionality, you can use an interface that all the other screens use which will simplify the process, as the MathsGame only needs to know about the class that implement the interface and not EVERY thing else that might be going on...as a suggestion..
Also, where should I put the code for switching between screens?
From my perspective, it's the responsibility of the MathsGame game to determine when and to which screen should be shown. What I would normally do, is provide some kind of notification process that the current screen can ask the MathsGame to switch screens, maybe via a listener or other agreeded interface. This would mean that each screen would need reference to MathsGame.
Instead of passing it (MathsGame) directly, I'd create an interface that MathsGame would implement (say NavigationController), which defined the calls/contract that each sub screen could use (nextScreen/previousScreen) for example.
Take a look at Model-View-Controller for more ideas
I'm developing a new application where I'll have some windows opened at the same time.
I'm currently trying to design the GUI and I'm struggling with two choices:
I could use a side navigation panel and using the center of the page to display the content of each panel. These panels would be stored according flyweight pattern and I would just hide/show them when navigation buttons are clicked (in order to save the content as is was when hidden, for example a user registration form).
I could use a front page displaying the menu all over it and use popups/new windows to show the content. These could be closed/minimized etc).
My problem is: What if all the panels are stored in my flyweight pattern? will it have a huge performance hit or will it still run smoothly with like 15 JPanels stored? (of course those JPanels will have sometimes lots of content in it such as forms etc).
What do you think would be the best easy-to-use/performance choice ?
Thank you :)
JTable rendering already uses the flyweight pattern, so a one column table is ideal for selection. A custom renderer can display an arbitrary thumbnail representation, while a ListSelectionListener can display arbitrary detail in an adjacent container. In the TableModel, consider an LRU cache if the individual data records are consuming too much memory.
As always with performance questions, prototype and profile.
As long as you don't attempt to hold more data than fits the heap reasonably, performance will be a non-issue nowadays (unless you do something exceptionally bad you will not notice any performance difference from the user perspective).
That said, unless you have pressing reason to hold on to GUI's you currently don't need - just let them get GC'd and recreate them as needed. The create-throw-away after one use approach is more flexible when the application needs to be modified and bears less opportunities for memory leaks.
As for the GUI design aspect, many people absolutely hate popups. They can also interfere with focus management/keyboard usage. But it still depends on which kind of control flow you need. Side menu bar is fine for many purposes.
I'd like to point out that the side menu is just a fancy reinvention of Tabbed Pane (which is a standard component you wouldn't need to implement yourself). Also, if things need to be done in a specific order - a Wizard like approach can also be a good choice (one Window that changes contents with each step completed).