Eclipse Community Forums - RDF feed
https://www.eclipse.org/forums/
Eclipse Community ForumsIs it possible to have a ScrolledComposite with width>32767 on Windows 2000
https://www.eclipse.org/forums/index.php/mv/msg/146274/460460/#msg_460460
Originally posted by: bodo.weiss.NOSPAM.acm.org
I created a ScolledComposite with
ScrolledComposite scrolledComposite = new ScrolledComposite(parent,
SWT.BORDER | SWT.H_SCROLL | SWT.V_SCROLL);
scrolledComposite.setContent(getOtherComposite());
scrolledComposite.setExpandVertical(true);
scrolledComposite.setExpandHorizontal(true);
scrolledComposite.setAlwaysShowScrollBars(true);
and then I set its size
scrolledComposite.setSize(50000,500);
Debuging SWT source code I can see, that the native method
org.eclipse.swt.internal.win32.OS.DefWindowProcW(int,int,int ,int)
that is indirectly called by
scrolledComposite.setSize(50000,500);
lowers the first parameter to 32767. Everything right of pixel 32767
isn't shown. Is this a platform limit of W2K, a bug or is it possible to
go behind 32767?]]>2005-08-28T14:06:57-00:00Re: Is it possible to have a ScrolledComposite with width>32767 on Windows 2000
https://www.eclipse.org/forums/index.php/mv/msg/146274/460482/#msg_460482
"Bodo Weiss" <bodo.weiss@NOSPAM.acm.org> wrote in message
news:desgdu$gk$1@news.eclipse.org...
> I created a ScolledComposite with
> ScrolledComposite scrolledComposite = new ScrolledComposite(parent,
> SWT.BORDER | SWT.H_SCROLL | SWT.V_SCROLL);
> scrolledComposite.setContent(getOtherComposite());
> scrolledComposite.setExpandVertical(true);
> scrolledComposite.setExpandHorizontal(true);
> scrolledComposite.setAlwaysShowScrollBars(true);
> and then I set its size
> scrolledComposite.setSize(50000,500);
>
> Debuging SWT source code I can see, that the native method
> org.eclipse.swt.internal.win32.OS.DefWindowProcW(int,int,int ,int)
> that is indirectly called by
> scrolledComposite.setSize(50000,500);
> lowers the first parameter to 32767. Everything right of pixel 32767
> isn't shown. Is this a platform limit of W2K, a bug or is it possible to
> go behind 32767?]]>Steve Northover2005-08-29T18:10:08-00:00