Would IllegalStateException be better here? Usually UOE is for
operations that are simply not supported by the class in question. In
this case, the operation is only unsupported if the camera on the scene
(i.e., the state of an object) is of a certain type which can change at
runtime.
I'm OK either way, just want it to be a deliberate decision.
-- Kevin
Pavel Safrata wrote:
As I've said, we intend to fix it in the future, so the situation
should not be impossible. It is mostly used that way in the existing
code, but there definitely are precedents for throwing it just
temporarily. For instance:
nodeOrientationProperty().getCssMetaData:
throw new UnsupportedOperationException("Not supported yet.");
or
MeshView.impl_computeContains():
throw new UnsupportedOperationException("Not supported yet.");
(internal but directly accessible to users via contains())
Pavel
On 16.10.2013 20:10, Stephen F Northover wrote:
I took a quick look through JavaFX to find how this exception is
used. It is mostly used to indicate impossible situation. Is that
the situation we have here?
Personally, for me, if we throw the exception, then we will generally
just leave it that way forever.
Steve
On 2013-10-16 11:22 AM, Pavel Safrata wrote:
On 16.10.2013 17:03, Stephen F Northover wrote:
Could do something useful with what was there now? We can always
fix this in future by adding another API to govern the
interpretation of the value.
Not much useful. Anyway, any such stuff can be quite easily done by
reading the intersectedPoint's Z coordinate.
Throwing the exception indicates that the call is unsupported, but
application code can be written to catch the exception and when we
implement the API, it can break (I realize that this is unlikely).
The exception can tell by the message that the operation will be
supported in the future.
Pavel
Steve
On 2013-10-16 10:46 AM, Richard Bair wrote:
My quick vote would be throwing the exception, but is like to hear
from Steve and Kevin.
On Oct 16, 2013, at 1:04 AM, Pavel Safrata
<pavel.safr...@oracle.com> wrote:
Hello,
it looks like we can't help releasing a not-fully-baked piece of
API with FX8. We've added bunch of new APIs for 3D and did our
best to make them work well. Unfortunately, there's been not
enough time&priority to fine-tune their behavior in 2D world.
Right now I'm concerned about camera position in scene. It is
inherent in the 3D perspective camera that it has its specific
position in world, but the 2D parallel camera as we have it
projects everything to the XY plane basically by ignoring the Z
coordinate, so the camera position doesn't matter all that much.
However, some of the newly added APIs depend on it:
1. Near/far clip on camera. This obviously cannot work without
knowing where the camera is. Right now the parallel camera does
no clipping though, so I guess we are OK to go with it as a
"known limitation".
2. PickResult on events which reports "intersectedDistance"
between the camera and the picked point. This is worse because we
can't just "not support" it - there will be some value and once
somebody uses it we'll have a backward compatibility issue. The
state right now is that the camera is (tentatively, by my
arbitrary decision) at [0, 0, -1] and reports distances from
there (note that as the camera renders everything, for nodes "in
front of Z=-1" it reports negative distances). This may change
when the camera position is properly discussed and specified.
Note that this post is *not* meant to discuss the camera
position. Even if we could find the answer quickly (which I
doubt), it's most probably too late to apply the change for FX8.
So finally here is my question: do you think it's OK to solve
this by keeping the current behavior and documenting the
"intersectedDistance" in a way that for parallel camera the
numbers are unspecified and subject to change in future versions?
Or would you prefer something more drastic like throwing an
UnsupportedOperationException (losing the possibility to compare
the distances)?
Thanks,
Pavel
