Hi Richard,
do I understand correctly that you prefer replacing the existing
constructors by the following?
public SubScene(Parent root, double width, double height, boolean resizable,
boolean depthBuffer, boolean antiAliasing)
public SubScene(Parent root, double width, double height, boolean resizable)
Thanks,
Pavel
On 18.9.2013 16:59, Richard Bair wrote:
I think it is better to be explicit in all cases.
On Sep 18, 2013, at 7:47 AM, Pavel Safrata <pavel.safr...@oracle.com> wrote:
Thanks, guys. Let me stay focused on the SubScene for now. Looks like #2 wins.
After some more thinking it turns out the boolean isResizable constructor
argument is not ideal because giving size to a resizable subscene doesn't make
much sense (it is resized as soon as it is placed in layout so the initial size
is not really used). So I think it would be better to add constructors without
the size and set the resizability implicitly according to the constructor used.
It might not be immediately clear but to me it still seems better than
requiring two useless arguments.
To make this more formal API review, I propose the following:
The existing constructors will stay the same and continue to create a
fixed-size subscene:
public SubScene(Parent root, double width, double height, boolean depthBuffer,
boolean antiAliasing)
public SubScene(Parent root, double width, double height)
Add new constructors creating a resizable subscene:
public SubScene(Parent root, boolean depthBuffer, boolean antiAliasing)
public SubScene(Parent root)
The resizable subscene will forward root's min/pref/max sizes, the
non-resizable subscene will continue to use the user-set width/height property
value.
Just for completness, the other option is to replace the long constructor with
public SubScene(Parent root, double width, double height, boolean resizable,
boolean depthBuffer, boolean antiAliasing)
and document the width and height arguments to be of virtually no use in the
resizable case. Let me know if you'd prefer this option.
Thanks,
Pavel
On 17.9.2013 16:59, Richard Bair wrote:
Personally I wish that it were possible to use pattern #2 with Rectangle,
ImageView, and a bunch of others as well. Anything that *could* be resizable
should have an option to be resizable. Heck, I wish it were possible to turn
resizable on/off dynamically for SubScene or the others, not just an immutable
property.
But an immutable property with a constructor to set it is a good first step
(especially since we don't have time in this release to do anything more
comprehensive or radical).
Richard
On Sep 17, 2013, at 1:15 AM, Pavel Safrata <pavel.safr...@oracle.com> wrote:
Hello,
we want to make SubScene resizable (reporting min/pref/max sizes according to
its root) for it to behave nicely when placed in layout (
https://javafx-jira.kenai.com/browse/RT-31377 ). For the main driver of
SubScene's existence - 2D overlays over 3D content - this makes perfect sense.
However, there are use-cases where the fixed size is needed. Mainly, every
SubScene with 3D content probably wants the fixed size as the content bounds
are not really meaningful after the perspective projection. So, we need to
support both resizable and non-resizable SubScene.
There are two basic options:
1. Follow the pattern used in layouts. As SubScene is not a layout class
(doesn't inherit from Region), this would mean adding the six methods (
set{Min|Pref|Max}{Width|Height} ) and duplicating the Region's
USE_COMPUTED_SIZE constant.
+ consistent with layouts
- duplicated API
- user needs six calls to make sure the SubScene has fixed size
2. Add an isResizable constructor argument, then just make the SubScene report
root's min/pref/max sizes in the resizable case.
+ easy to use the SubScene in the fixed-size manner (and resizable, too)
+ small API change
- probably an unfamiliar pattern we don't have elsewhere (but, SubScene is a
pretty unique node)
What do you think?
Thanks,
Pavel
