I agree with David. Let's go that way and see where things end up.

As always, thanks Tom for being relentless in pushing this forward.

-- Jonathan

On 2/05/2014 1:27 p.m., David Grieve wrote:
I don't have a strong opinion, other than a preference for having it done one way in all cases. So it seems (StyleableProperty<Boolean>)(WritableValue<Boolean>) would be the way to go.

On 5/1/14, 12:25 PM, Tom Schindl wrote:
Hi Jonathan & David,

do you have any opinion on this? I would spend some time tomorrow to
bring down the warning count.

Maybe we should use the Styleable*Property cast when we control both the
API & implementation and reside to the more save
(StyleableProperty<Boolean>)(WritableValue<Boolean>) e.g. if we don't
e.g. because code is owned by the graphics module?

One could naturally look at this from another angle and say the Syleable
interface should have been shown in the API but I guess this not going
to change so we need to live with casts and the implementation detail.

Tom

On 30.04.14 15:39, Tom Schindl wrote:
Hi,

On 29.04.14 14:35, David Grieve wrote:
I've found that this works:

     final StyleableBooleanProperty prop =
(StyleableBooleanProperty)focusTraversableProperty();

Right i can confirm that.

The problem is that we are then relying even more on the fact the
upstream code does not change. If someone because of what ever reason
decides to replace the StyleableBooleanProperty through a custom
implementation StyleableProperty<Boolean> we get broken.

In case of focusTraversableProperty() we are even crossing module
boundaries in this case which worries me a bit.

Tom



Reply via email to