On Tue, 28 Oct 2025 22:34:07 GMT, John Hendrikx <[email protected]> wrote:
> You mentioned that FX "promises to handle all edge cases". Do you care to > show me where it does so? Because FX would be the first system with complex > layouts that would be doing so. That is a bit taken out of its context. My text said: At least the layout system in JavaFX gives developers lots of freedom, and it promises to handle all edge cases. That fulfills the main goal (correct rendering, perhaps after a number of pulses, leading to flickering), but it makes the second goal (top-efficiency) really hard. What I wanted to say with this is that the *current* handling gives priority to making sure things got rendered, and not to performance. If you want to change that, all good. I simply tried to give my reading of historical context, while trying to understand why things are the way they are. Again, I'm not saying this should not be modified (rather the contrary). I had the impression you wondered about why it was like it was, and I tried to answer that. Sorry if that message came over a bit hyperbolic. ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jfx/pull/1945#issuecomment-3466696378
