This Bugzilla instance is a read-only archive of historic NetBeans bug reports. To report a bug in NetBeans please follow the project's instructions for reporting issues.

Bug 161756 - Ambiguous elements in Artifact details view
Summary: Ambiguous elements in Artifact details view
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 164973
Alias: None
Product: projects
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Maven (show other bugs)
Version: 6.x
Hardware: All All
: P3 blocker (vote)
Assignee: David Simonek
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2009-04-02 12:49 UTC by Jaroslav Pospisil
Modified: 2009-05-12 16:00 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Issue Type: DEFECT
Exception Reporter:

Attachments
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Jaroslav Pospisil 2009-04-02 12:49:23 UTC 
If you open some library's Artifact Details view, there's many ambiguous elements in the view. Multiple non-editable
textboxes or text-areas versus editable textareas and listboxes, mostly in Basic and Project tab. 
I think we should distinguish editable and non-editable controls and display second group as labels.
Comment 1 Milos Kleint 2009-04-02 13:53:14 UTC 
AFAIK, there's nothing editable around. 
The non-editable textfields, textareas might be better since labels don't properly handle long values. They don't keep
the proportions correctly on the page and expand indefinitely.

-1 on this I would close it as wontfix. labels are bad for value display. Up to dafe's discression though.
Comment 2 David Simonek 2009-05-12 15:15:30 UTC 
From my UI point of view, non-editable text fields are bad for displaying information, labels are better. If carefully
laid out (for example using GridBagLayout) they don't expand anywhere.

However, I'm thinking of larger rearrange which would include this request (which is more RFE then defect IMHO), so I'm
going to create new enhancement and make this a duplicate.
Comment 3 David Simonek 2009-05-12 16:00:13 UTC 
Included in 164973, marking as duplicate.

*** This issue has been marked as a duplicate of 164973 ***