On Fri, 17 Oct 2025 02:50:19 GMT, Michael Strauß <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Michael Strauß has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Make leftSystemInset/rightSystemInset/minSystemHeight attached properties
>
> There's another thing that I think will improve the `HeaderBar`API:
>
> The `leftSystemInset`, `rightSystemInset`, and `minSystemHeight` properties
> shouldn't be normal properties, but attached properties for `Stage`. If you
> think about it, these aren't really properties of `HeaderBar`, but properties
> of `Stage` that are used in the context of `HeaderBar`.
>
> We already have an attached property of this kind:
> `HeaderBar.getPrefButtonHeight(Stage)`. Having the other three properties
> defined similarly makes the API more consistent.
>
> It should be noted that this will be the first instance of an _observable_
> attached property in JavaFX. So while regular attached properties have a
> getter/setter pair like this...
>
> class HBox {
> static Insets getMargin(Node);
> static void setMargin(Node, Insets);
> }
>
>
> ...an observable attached property will have an observable property getter:
>
> class HeaderBar {
> static ReadOnlyObjectProperty<Dimension2D> leftSystemInsetProperty(Stage);
> static Dimension2D getLeftSystemInset(Stage);
> }
>
>
> The form of the property getter shouldn't be controversial, as it follows the
> existing getter/setter form for attached properties.
>
> What needs to be clarified, however, is what `getBean()` and `getName()`
> should return for an attached observable property.
> Since an attached property is a part of the object it is attached to, the
> `getBean()` method should return that object. In our example, this means
> `HeaderBar.leftSystemInsetProperty(myStage).getBean() == myStage`.
>
> For the `getName()` method, the usual convention is to return the
> lowerCamelCase name of the property. However, since an attached property is
> not declared on the object's class to which it is attached, the name
> shouldn't claim that it is. I propose a naming convention of the form
> `DeclaringType.myProperty`, that is, the property name is qualified with the
> declaring type. In our example, the name of the property would be
> "HeaderBar.leftSystemInset" (instead of just "leftSystemInset").
@mstr2 are there any plans to look at this:
<img width="908" height="508" alt="IMG_20251204_153610"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/6306c678-38f3-4e8c-bcf1-933536403933";
/>
On Linux Min 22.2 with Cinnamon I get a rectangular window no matter what. I
also tried setting the root's background color and radius, as well as the
scene's fill to `TRANSPARENT` but nothing works.
One thing I'm curious about is why it was implemented this way. I mean, if the
native decorations are just rendered on top of JavaFX nodes, then why I'm not
able to set the scene's fill to `TRANSPARENT` and let the developer handle the
rest.
-------------
PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jfx/pull/1936#issuecomment-3612579619
