To summarize: the final agreement was on:
@Retention(RUNTIME)
@Target(PARAMETER)
public @interface NamedArg {
public String value();
public String defaultValue() default "";
}
in javafx.beans package, right?
If nobody objects, I will go with this.
Regards,
Eva
On 16.10.2013 21:07, Ev
We already have RT-32860 (Add constructor annotations) for this. I've
copied this discussion to the JIRA issue.
Eva
On 16.10.2013 19:27, Stephen F Northover wrote:
Eva,
Perhaps @NamedArg is shorter and makes the code more readable?
If you don't have a JIRA already, please create one and pas
+1
> Am 16.10.2013 um 19:28 schrieb "Richard Bair" :
>
> Looks good to me.
>
>> On Oct 16, 2013, at 10:02 AM, Stephen F Northover
>> wrote:
>>
>> It seems we are settling on @NamedArgument ... anybody disagree strongly?
>>
>> Steve
>>
>>> On 2013-10-16 11:45 AM, Richard Bair wrote:
>>> Ya
NamedArg, like a pirate :-)
> On Oct 16, 2013, at 10:27 AM, Stephen F Northover
> wrote:
>
> Eva,
>
> Perhaps @NamedArg is shorter and makes the code more readable?
>
> If you don't have a JIRA already, please create one and paste in this
> discussion. Interested parties can add themselves
Eva,
Perhaps @NamedArg is shorter and makes the code more readable?
If you don't have a JIRA already, please create one and paste in this
discussion. Interested parties can add themselves to the watchers list.
Steve
On 2013-10-16 1:25 PM, Richard Bair wrote:
Looks good to me.
On Oct 16,
Looks good to me.
> On Oct 16, 2013, at 10:02 AM, Stephen F Northover
> wrote:
>
> It seems we are settling on @NamedArgument ... anybody disagree strongly?
>
> Steve
>
>> On 2013-10-16 11:45 AM, Richard Bair wrote:
>> Ya that works too.
>>
>>> On Oct 16, 2013, at 8:41 AM, Eva Krejcirova
>
It seems we are settling on @NamedArgument ... anybody disagree strongly?
Steve
On 2013-10-16 11:45 AM, Richard Bair wrote:
Ya that works too.
On Oct 16, 2013, at 8:41 AM, Eva Krejcirova wrote:
Good point!
In FX sources, we already use the @Default annotation which was used by
annotation p
Ya that works too.
> On Oct 16, 2013, at 8:41 AM, Eva Krejcirova wrote:
>
> Good point!
> In FX sources, we already use the @Default annotation which was used by
> annotation processor when generating the builders. Because of this, it has
> source retention policy, so it cannot be used by FXML
Good point!
In FX sources, we already use the @Default annotation which was used by
annotation processor when generating the builders. Because of this, it
has source retention policy, so it cannot be used by FXMLLoader. I was
thinking about promoting this to runtime annotation but maybe your
s
One thing that just came to my mind is that maybe also need a way to
define the default value to be used, with a builder I could e.g. define
that the default for fields are different from their real native default.
class MyBuilder {
private boolean a = true;
private int x = -1;
private Inset
+1 for base module
+1 for option 2
Only thing that troubles me is the readability if the annotation is long..
you will end up with a lot of boilerplate annotation characters vs. content
in the constructor argument declaration...
-Sven
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 5:12 PM, Tom Schindl wrote:
> To m
To me the JavaBean solution with one annotation looks error prone, does
anybody know why they did not use an annotation per field?
Tom
On 16.10.13 16:58, Stephen F Northover wrote:
> +1 for base. Should we not follow closely what Java Beans is doing for
> consistency? I realize that we can't ha
Not to mention Tom's point that it can't be in the fxml module without
created unwanted (and circular) module dependencies. Seems like it needs
to be in the "base" module then, right?
-- Kevin
Richard Bair wrote:
+1 this is my preference. It is useful for things other than FXML, and should
+1 for base. Should we not follow closely what Java Beans is doing for
consistency? I realize that we can't have the reference.
Steve
On 2013-10-16 10:53 AM, Kevin Rushforth wrote:
Not to mention Tom's point that it can't be in the fxml module without
created unwanted (and circular) module d
+1 this is my preference. It is useful for things other than FXML, and should
be considered part of our javafx.beans API.
> On Oct 16, 2013, at 4:20 AM, Tom Schindl wrote:
>
>> On 16.10.13 11:22, Eva Krejcirova wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> when we retired builders, we caused a problem for FXML whic
On 16.10.2013 11:26, Tom Eugelink wrote:
Would the duality of using the parameter info when available or else
the annotation (2nd option) be an viable approach?
This is probably doable but I am not sure whether we want to turn on the
parameter info for the whole JavaFX - last time I checked i
On 16.10.13 11:22, Eva Krejcirova wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> when we retired builders, we caused a problem for FXML which doesn't
> have a way to create classes without default constructors. Back then we
> decided to use an annotation for this but never actually got to
> implement it and we need to fix
ely.
Eva
*From:* Claus Luethje [mailto:claus.luet...@osys.ch]
*To:* Eva Krejcirova [mailto:eva.krejcir...@oracle.com],
openjfx-dev@openjdk.java.net [mailto:openjfx-dev@openjdk.java.net]
*Sent:* Wed, 16 Oct 2013 11:26:12 +
*Subject:* RE: Constructor annotation
:12 +
Subject: RE: Constructor annotation
Hi
I'd prefer the second option, because the correlation of the order of
arguments in the annotation and in the constructors parameters is irritating
and error prone.
The way it is structured in option two is seen elsewhere also. So, nothing
n
name to describe what's going on.
My 2 cents...
Regards
Claus
-Original Message-
From: openjfx-dev-boun...@openjdk.java.net
[mailto:openjfx-dev-boun...@openjdk.java.net] On Behalf Of Eva Krejcirova
Sent: Mittwoch, 16. Oktober 2013 11:22
To: openjfx-dev@openjdk.java.net
Subject: C
Would the duality of using the parameter info when available or else the
annotation (2nd option) be an viable approach?
Tom
On 2013-10-16 11:22, Eva Krejcirova wrote:
Hi All,
when we retired builders, we caused a problem for FXML which doesn't have a way
to create classes without default c
Hi All,
when we retired builders, we caused a problem for FXML which doesn't
have a way to create classes without default constructors. Back then we
decided to use an annotation for this but never actually got to
implement it and we need to fix this for FX8. I am in the process of
adding this
22 matches
Mail list logo
