> Looking at JavaFX the story there is completely different. I had to
> write a lot of property binding code in C# lately (would have been the
> same in Java I guess) and seeing that all done with the little keyword
> bind just blows my mind.
I agree, it's a really cool feature to have in a language that's
focused on GUI-development, after all that's most of what you do. But
it's important to remember that internally it's done with a bunch of
listeners, similar to beans binding just less transparent (or more,
depending on how you look at it). Anyway, my point is that in a
general purpose language you can have the same thing without being too
verbose:
// Disclaimer: I never actually wrote C# code, I just read some
articles.
private readonly Binding<int> b
= BindingLib.createBinding(=> parent.width - 20);
public readonly int width { get { return b.get(); } }
I'm pretty sure that expression trees are not powerful enough to
actually return the value of "parent", but you get the idea.
// less lazy variation (based on the Java with properties
// and expression trees from my dreams). binding would
// keep a weak reference to "this#width" and dispose of
// itself when "this" is collected
private final Binding binding
= BindingLib.createBinding(
this#width,
parent.width - 20
);
property int width { public get; private set; }
With kind regards
Ben
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The
Java Posse" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
