Looks good to me.
> On Oct 16, 2013, at 10:02 AM, Stephen F Northover
> <steve.x.northo...@oracle.com> wrote:
>
> It seems we are settling on @NamedArgument ... anybody disagree strongly?
>
> Steve
>
>> On 2013-10-16 11:45 AM, Richard Bair wrote:
>> 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
>
