On Thu, 23 Jul 2026 10:00:06 GMT, Marius Hanl <[email protected]> wrote:

>> That's an odd amount of detail that is rather implementation specific.
>> 
>> I would suggest we remove it, as I don't think there are good reasons for 
>> this other than "that's how it works currently", and it actually is an 
>> active source of problems.
>> 
>> A property being unsettable does not mean you can't evaluate the stylesheet 
>> to find what value it would have gotten (and that's what we do now). The 
>> only reason this method exists is that is faster than catching 
>> "RuntimeException: A bound value cannot be set.".
>> 
>> There are two good reasons to still evaluate the CSS value (even if we won't 
>> set it):
>> 
>> - The property may not be bound forever; if the cache entry was created 
>> without the calculation of the value for a "locked" property, then we later 
>> won't know what CSS based value to put in there (note: unbinding a property 
>> is not detected, so binding/unbinding already plays very badly with the CSS 
>> system).
>> 
>> - The cache entry may be shared with siblings in the same state; if the 
>> cache entry was initialized by a Node with bound properties, and we then 
>> just skip those, then the other siblings would not have that value either -- 
>> this causes incorrect value resets and properties to not be styled, which 
>> this PR specifically wants to address
>> 
>> If there are good reasons to keep it, then the only other option we have is 
>> to NOT create a cache entry at all when a Node has any CSS property bound (a 
>> sibling that is in a better state may create it still though). This could be 
>> a performance hazard though, because if it is the only node of its kind, it 
>> would always need to go through the slow `lookup` path until there are no 
>> more bound properties.
>
> +1 for removing it.

you mean removing the spec "_This method is called before any styles are looked 
up for the given property._" ?

-------------

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jfx/pull/2218#discussion_r3640817979

Reply via email to