Ya that works too.
> On Oct 16, 2013, at 8:41 AM, Eva Krejcirova <eva.krejcir...@oracle.com> wrote:
>
> Good point!
> In FX sources, we already use the @Default annotation which was used by
> annotation processor when generating the builders. Because of this, it has
> source retention policy, so it cannot be used by FXMLLoader. I was thinking
> about promoting this to runtime annotation but maybe your solution is better.
>
> We should solve this for FX8 otherwise the FXMLLoader will behave differently
> from how the generated builders behaved.
>
> Eva
>
>> On 16.10.2013 17:24, Tom Schindl wrote:
>> One thing that just came to my mind is that maybe also need a way to
>> define the default value to be used, with a builder I could e.g. define
>> that the default for fields are different from their real native default.
>>
>> class MyBuilder {
>> private boolean a = true;
>> private int x = -1;
>> private Insets i = new Insets(10);
>> }
>>
>> If we want to have a full replacement for builders the annotation must
>> have the possibility define this (in future).
>>
>> public @interface NamedArgument {
>> String value();
>> String defaultValue();
>> Class<Converter> converterClass();
>> }
>>
>> If no converterClass is given we'd have to do our best to auto-convert
>> the String. I don't want to say that we should implement the default
>> value definition in FX8 but it would feel more natural with an
>> annotation per argument.
>>
>> Tom
>>
>>> On 16.10.13 17:12, Tom Schindl wrote:
>>> 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
>
