As long as Cylinder/divisions/PerspectiveCamera/fixedEyePosition can be encoded in FXML, that should be fine for Scene Builder. Having setters for those properties can be a way to optimize previewing. But it's not mandatory.
Eric > Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2013 14:10:43 -0700 > From: Kevin Rushforth <kevin.rushfo...@oracle.com> > Subject: Re: Cylinder divisions and PerspectiveCamera fixedEyePosition > should be mutable > To: Richard Bair <richard.b...@oracle.com> > Cc: "openjfx-dev@openjdk.java.net list" <openjfx-dev@openjdk.java.net> > Message-ID: <524f2ed3.7060...@oracle.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > Sounds good. > > >> Depends on whether it is usable from SceneBuilder and FXML, and the >> following: >> - We must *not* expose a ReadOnly property for these properties >> (and I don't think we do) > > No, we don't. > >> - The FXML changes must be backwards compatible (they should be but >> we need to verify) > > I'll add a note to the JIRA and the FXML folks can reply. > > >> - The SceneBuilder can do something reasonable as is (not sure). > > Chien or I can reach out to the SB team. > > -- Kevin > > > Richard Bair wrote: >> Depends on whether it is usable from SceneBuilder and FXML, and the >> following: >> - We must *not* expose a ReadOnly property for these properties >> (and I don't think we do) >> - The FXML changes must be backwards compatible (they should be but >> we need to verify) >> - The SceneBuilder can do something reasonable as is (not sure). >> >> Richard >> >> On Oct 4, 2013, at 1:08 PM, Kevin Rushforth >> <kevin.rushfo...@oracle.com <mailto:kevin.rushfo...@oracle.com>> wrote: >> >>> Certainly for divisions there is no reason to keep them immutable. >>> For fixedEyeAtCameraZero, I don't think the reasons for keeping it >>> immutable are compelling. >>> >>> Making either change in FX 8 is a different matter, though, given how >>> late we are. The implementation assumes immutability and we would >>> need to change it, implement it, test it, and then fix any bugs as a >>> result. Seems like we could add mutability in a subsequent release. >>> >>> -- Kevin >>> >>> >>> Richard Bair wrote: >>>> I would turn that around and say that unless there is a compelling reason >>>> for something to be immutable, it should be mutable. Mutability is >>>> important for tools as well as for FXML as well as for developers. >>>> >>>> Immutable state is awesome for thread-safety or any type of concurrency. >>>> But these types of classes are not of that nature, they're UI only >>>> classes, and as such their state should be mutable (and like all mutable >>>> state in FX, the range of possible values should not be hindered by the >>>> evil "unbind" pattern). >>>> >>>> Richard >>>> >>>> On Oct 4, 2013, at 12:46 PM, Kevin Rushforth <kevin.rushfo...@oracle.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Yes, that pretty much captures the thinking behind it. >>>>> >>>>> My thought is that there is no real reason that subdivisions need to be >>>>> immutable, although I wouldn't want to change it at this late date for FX >>>>> 8 unless it is needed for FXML support. >>>>> >>>>> The fixedEyeAtCameraZero mode is not something I think should be mutable, >>>>> since the camera behaves fairly differently in each mode. Having said >>>>> that, there is no reason it couldn't be made mutable in a subsequent >>>>> release if there was a good reason to do so. >>>>> >>>>> -- Kevin >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Chien Yang wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> We did discuss making divisions in the predefined 3D shapes mutable in >>>>>> earlier meeting. However we decided against it since it is a heavy >>>>>> weight operation as the supporting mesh will has to be regenerated. I >>>>>> believe the constructor with the divisions argument will not have much >>>>>> use in the future when we move away from mesh implementation of our >>>>>> predefined 3D shapes. >>>>>> >>>>>> The fixedEyeAtCameraZero flag in PerspectiveCamera is a setup flag to >>>>>> the camera and once set it shouldn't be changed. The perspective >>>>>> projection matrix is constructed differently depending on the flag. In >>>>>> the default mode, JavaFX controls the eye to achieve a projection plane >>>>>> at Z=0 so that simple adding of 3D shapes into a 2D scene looks >>>>>> intuitive. The other mode, where eye is fixed a camera zero, is well >>>>>> suitable for movable camera in the 3d space. >>>>>> >>>>>> - Chien >>>>>> >>>>>> On 10/4/2013 9:28 AM, Richard Bair wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Why are they not? It isn't immediately obvious to me why these are not >>>>>>> mutable? I was readinghttps://javafx-jira.kenai.com/browse/RT-29577 and >>>>>>> this struck me as odd. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Richard >>>>>>> >>>> >>>> >> >
