On Sun, 21 Dec 2025 13:40:14 GMT, John Hendrikx <[email protected]> wrote:
> I think the `getDeclaringClass` on `ReadOnlyProperty` is okayish; however, > I'd probably never take the time to override this method with a proper value, > mostly because this requires creating a subclass to be efficient. I know that > within JavaFX, creating a subclass for each and every property (resulting in > 1000's of subclasses) is "the standard", but for my own use, I never do this > as it is just too much boilerplate. You can also specify it in the constructor of the `Simple*`-properties, along with the bean and name. > I do however have a bit of problem with `isAttached`; what does this have to > do with properties in general? The description doesn't clarify what it means > really, or what it even means outside the very specific case where HBox can > "donate" properties to its children. > > So to me, the attached part feels out of place for a low-level property API, > unless there are compelling reasons and other use cases we'd envision outside > of having CSS stylable child properties. If not, I don't see why we shouldn't > make this a method on `Stylable` or something more Node/CSS specific like in > this PR: #1714 I think attached-ness is a fundamental aspect of properties, and making it visible in the type system is a logical choice. Compare this to WPF or Avalonia, where attached properties are also explicitly modelled. It's a piece of information that you can't reliably get from a property's metadata otherwise. ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jfx/pull/2015#issuecomment-3679602635
