I should point out that the rest of the JavaFX framework did not require a single code change as a result of the API changes. So while some changes are binary incompatible, they are syntactically transparent.
Am Mi., 28. Juli 2021 um 01:39 Uhr schrieb Kevin Rushforth <kevin.rushfo...@oracle.com>: > > This will take a while to work through, and we will need to get general > consensus on the API changes. > > I doubt I can support incompatible breaking changes in this area, given > how fundamental property and bindings are to JavaFX. I'll take a look, > but it is likely that the incompatible API changes part of your proposed > change will not be accepted. > > The changes enforcing correct usage should be a lot less controversial > and easier to get through. > > -- Kevin > > > On 7/27/2021 4:23 PM, Michael Strauß wrote: > > I propose a set of changes to the JavaFX property system that I've > > outlined in this PR: https://github.com/openjdk/jfx/pull/590 > > > > The changes fall into two categories: enforcement of correct usage > > (there are several cases listed in the PR), and deprecating untyped > > APIs (for removal in a future version) so as to make the intent of the > > API more clear to developers. > > > > Even though there are breaking changes, the impact on application code > > should be minimal. I'd welcome any comments on this proposal. >
