On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 00:12:01 GMT, Kevin Rushforth <k...@openjdk.org> wrote:
> 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. I finished reviewing the rest of the classes and I had no additional comments about them, so I agree about deprecating for removal those 2 classes' constructors. > 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's fine. I left inline comments about those. > 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 Since it will require an additional cleanup issue anyway, I don't think it matters when we do it, but since we're here I see no reason not to start already. ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jfx/pull/283
