On Mon, 17 Aug 2020 11:16:55 GMT, Bhawesh Choudhary <bchoudh...@openjdk.org> wrote:
> Added missing explicit no-arg constructors to classes in package > javafx.scene, javafx.css and javafx.stage. I think that two of the classes have implicit constructors that are there by accident. Once we get agreement, I'll file a follow-on bug for those, and those changes should be reverted. As for the other comments, I would prefer a follow-up bug for any doc cleanup that isn't part of adding in an explicit constructor. Tempting as it might be to fix it, it seems out of scope. That leaves the question about the wording. The more I think about it the more I like what the JDK did as opposed to what we did. The question then becomes: if we agree that it's a better pattern, do we adopt it here and then clean it up for the other two batches or just leave it as is for now, and file one cleanup bug for later. I'd like to hear from @aghaisas and @nlisker ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jfx/pull/283
