To me the JavaBean solution with one annotation looks error prone, does
anybody know why they did not use an annotation per field?
Tom
On 16.10.13 16:58, Stephen F Northover wrote:
> +1 for base. Should we not follow closely what Java Beans is doing for
> consistency? I realize that we can't have the reference.
>
> Steve
>
> On 2013-10-16 10:53 AM, Kevin Rushforth wrote:
>> Not to mention Tom's point that it can't be in the fxml module without
>> created unwanted (and circular) module dependencies. Seems like it
>> needs to be in the "base" module then, right?
>>
>> -- Kevin
>>
>>
>> Richard Bair wrote:
>>> +1 this is my preference. It is useful for things other than FXML,
>>> and should be considered part of our javafx.beans API.
>>>
>>>> On Oct 16, 2013, at 4:20 AM, Tom Schindl
>>>> <tom.schi...@bestsolution.at> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 16.10.13 11:22, Eva Krejcirova wrote:
>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>
>>>>> when we retired builders, we caused a problem for FXML which doesn't
>>>>> have a way to create classes without default constructors. Back
>>>>> then we
>>>>> decided to use an annotation for this but never actually got to
>>>>> implement it and we need to fix this for FX8. I am in the process of
>>>>> adding this functionality to FXMLLoader but we need to decide how the
>>>>> annotation will look like and I could use some help with this.
>>>>>
>>>>> We cannot use already existing ConstructorProperties for this, because
>>>>> it's java.beans package and we don't want to create to dependency on
>>>>> this package in JavaFX, so we need to introduce a new annotation.
>>>>>
>>>>> We have two options:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Annotate the whole constructor:
>>>>> e.g.
>>>>> @ConstructorArguments({"a", "b", "list"})
>>>>> public ImmutableClass(int a, int b, Integer... list)
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. Annotate the arguments:
>>>>> e.g.
>>>>> public ImmutableClass(@FXMLArgument("a") int a,
>>>>> @FXMLArgument("b")int b, @FXMLArgument("list")Integer... list)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Which option do you like more and how should the annotation be named?
>>>> Option 2, but does it really have to hold FXML in the annotation name?
>>>> Where would you put the annotation? I think it should NOT be in the
>>>> FXML-Package-Namespace because the core should NOT depend on FXML!
>>>>
>>>> I'd go with @Argument or simply @NamedArgument (@Named is already used
>>>> by javax.inject)
>>>>
>>>> Tom
>
