NamedArg, like a pirate :-)
> On Oct 16, 2013, at 10:27 AM, Stephen F Northover
> <steve.x.northo...@oracle.com> wrote:
>
> Eva,
>
> Perhaps @NamedArg is shorter and makes the code more readable?
>
> If you don't have a JIRA already, please create one and paste in this
> discussion. Interested parties can add themselves to the watchers list.
>
> Steve
>
>> On 2013-10-16 1:25 PM, Richard Bair wrote:
>> 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
>
