Hi Seeon,
I don't think that posting updates from all our JIRAs to a single
mailing list is a good idea because the messages traffic would be huge.
Each JIRA provides a watch list, so people can follow specific bugs that
they're interested in. I believe that this functionality is sufficient
for all reasonable purposes.
However, your suggestion about using threaded comments sounds
interesting. We've sent a request to our Infrastructure team to evaluate
the plugin and consider adding it to our JIRA instance. Note that this
is not going to happen overnight and could take some time, but the
request is filed at least. Thanks for the suggestion!
--
best regards,
Anthony
On 1/23/2014 9:09 PM, Seeon Birger wrote:
Steve,
I wonder if we could take advantage of available plug-ins for JIRA.
I particular I found this one which enables threaded comments for JIRA:
https://marketplace.atlassian.com/plugins/com.atlassian.jira.threadedcomments.threaded-comments
Also interesting is the following which make it easy to put JIRA updates on
mailing lists in a flexible and customizable way:
https://marketplace.atlassian.com/plugins/com.metainf.jira.plugin.emailissue
What do you think?
Seeon
-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen F Northover
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 12:45 AM
To: John Hendrikx; openjfx-dev@openjdk.java.net
Subject: Re: Move to JIRA [was: Re: [8u] API Request: RT-25613, ObservableValue
should have a hasListener(listener) method]
Hi John,
The goal is not to end the discussion!
It's a trade off. Mailing lists are good because they provide a threaded
discussion. JIRA is bad because it is not threaded. JIRA has the advantage
that it captures data in a single place and provides a good history of why a
decision was made.
There's no right answer here but the policy that the FX committers is using is
to try to capture as much as possible in JIRA.
Steve
On 2014-01-22 5:29 PM, John Hendrikx wrote:
Unfortunately, "discussing" things in JIRA works very poorly and is a
good way to end a productive discussion IMHO. Mailinglists are much
better suited to the task, as thousands of interesting mailinglists
accross many developer communities will atest to.
Keeping a record is good, aren't these mailinglists archived?
--John
On 22/01/2014 18:47, Daniel Blaukopf wrote:
Hi Martin, Randahl, Tom, Richard, Tomas and Ali,
This is a productive discussion, but once we get to this level of
detail JIRA is the place to have it, so that we don't lose our record
of it. Would you continue the discussion on
https://javafx-jira.kenai.com/browse/RT-25613 ?
See
https://wiki.openjdk.java.net/display/OpenJFX/Code+Reviews#CodeReview
s-TechnicalDiscussionsandCodeReviews
Thanks,
Daniel
On Jan 22, 2014, at 7:23 PM, Stephen F
Northover<steve.x.northo...@oracle.com> wrote:
If we add this API, I like addListener(InvalidationListener,
boolean) better than ensureListener().
Steve
On 2014-01-22 8:20 AM, Ali Ebrahimi wrote:
I suggest adding another overload for addListener method taking
boolean parameter "duplicateAllowed" or "duplicateNotAllowed".
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 3:00 PM, Richard
Bair<richard.b...@oracle.com>wrote:
The default implementation (for Observable) would look like this:
public default void ensureListener(InvalidationListener listener) {
removeListener(listener);
addListener(listener);
}
subclasses might do something more effective. The same would
apply to
ObservableValue and ChangeListener and Observable[List|Set|Map] and
[List|Set|Map]ChangeListener.
Well this would destroy the order! I expect listeners to be
called in
the correct order not?
That's a good point :-(
Why doing a remove and not simply check if the
listener has already been added?
Because there is no way to check, except in the implementation.
From the
Observable interface level, there is no way to a) force all
implementations
of the interface to implement the method correctly (without
breaking source
compatibility anyway), or b) to provide a reasonable default
implementation.
Maybe this is one of those things we can't fix on the Observable
interface
and just have to provide implementations of on our concrete
properties.
Richard
