On Wed, 7 Sep 2022 19:06:29 GMT, Kevin Rushforth <[email protected]> wrote:
>> @throws IllegalArgumentException if {@link Skin#getSkinnable()} returns a
>> different {@code Skinnable}
>>
>> is this better?
>
> As discussed elsewhere, only the property method should have javadoc
> comments, so this should be moved up to the property method, and the existing
> javadoc comments for this method should be deleted.
>
> I think we need a clearer statement here, given that there are only two
> top-level classes that implement `Skinnable`, `Control` and `PopupControl`,
> and thus override this method. `Control` enforces the 1-to-1 relationship by
> throwing an IAE if the `Skinnable` of the `Skin` doesn't match the `Control`,
> while `PopupControl` does not.
>
> So maybe something a little more definitive, like this?
>
>
> * To ensure a one-to-one relationship between a {@code Skinnable} and its
> * {@code Skin}, some implementations of this method will check the
> return value of
> * {@link Skin#getSkinnable()} against this Skinnable,
> * and throw an {@code IllegalArgumentException} if it is not the same.
>
>
> And then the exception could be changed to say....
>
>
> * @throws IllegalArgumentException if {@code skin.getSkinnable() !=
> this}, for
> * implementations that enforce this restriction
>
>
> This information would then be repeated in the `Control` class, but without
> the qualification.
also updated Control skinProperty javadoc, please review.
-------------
PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jfx/pull/845
