Yes, sorry, I made the email title in plural, but I meant what Michael said, Node would be sealed permitting only what is needed for JavaFx internally.
-- Thiago Em qua., 1 de fev. de 2023 às 13:48, Michael Strauß <michaelstr...@gmail.com> escreveu: > I don't think that's what Thiago is proposing. Only `Node` would be sealed. > The following subclasses would be non-sealed: Parent, SubScene, > Camera, LightBase, Shape, Shape3D, Canvas, ImageView. > And then there are additional subclasses, which don't fit into this > idea since they are in other modules: SwingNode (in javafx.swing), > MediaView (in javafx.media), Printable (in javafx.web). > > > > On Wed, Feb 1, 2023 at 5:39 PM John Hendrikx <john.hendr...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > I think this may be a bit unclear from this post, but you're proposing I > think to make `Node`, `Shape` and `Shape3D` sealed. For those unaware, > you're not allowed to extend these classes (despite being public). For > example Node says in its documentation: > > > > * An application should not extend the Node class directly. Doing so > may lead to > > * an UnsupportedOperationException being thrown. > > > > Currently this is enforced at runtime in NodeHelper. > > > > --John > > > > On 01/02/2023 15:47, Thiago Milczarek Sayão wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > NodeHelper.java has this: > > > > throw new UnsupportedOperationException( > > "Applications should not extend the " > > + nodeType + " class directly."); > > > > > > I think it's replaceable with selead classes. Am I right? > > > > The benefit will be compile time error instead of runtime. > > > > > > -- Thiago. > > >
