On Tue, 9 Feb 2021 10:31:57 GMT, Jeanette Winzenburg <faste...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> My concern is about having a similar way of doing something. It would keep >> the code uniform. We have been following the earlier pattern under a cleanup >> task [JDK-8241364](https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8241364). >> Several bugs under this task are being fixed in earlier way. >> May be we can discuss the new way of handling properties under a separate >> issue and plan to modify all such instances at once. Does that sound ok ? > > hmm ... might appear convenient (in very controlled contexts) but looks like > a precondition violation: the sender of the change must not be null > (concededly not explicitly spec'ed but logically implied, IMO) > > so would tend to _not_ see this as blueprint for a general pattern fx code > base I took a quick look at your latest change, and it seems reasonable to me now that you are calling a helper method rather than triggering a change method on the listener. I'll take a closer look later in the week. In the mean time @kleopatra and @arapte can provide their feedback. ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jfx/pull/185
