On Sat, 24 Jul 2021 12:56:32 GMT, Michael Strauß wrote:
> I think it might be better to expand the scope of the issue to not only
> include the documentation changes, but also the implementation changes as
> discussed in this PR. In this case, I will mark this as a Draft PR and target
> it to
On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 01:53:53 GMT, Michael Strauß wrote:
>> * Expand the `Property.bind` and `Property.bindBidirectional` documentation
>> * Change the name of the formal parameter of `Property.bind` to "source"
>> (currently, it is inconsistently named "observable", "rawObservable" or
>> "newOb
On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 01:53:53 GMT, Michael Strauß wrote:
>> * Expand the `Property.bind` and `Property.bindBidirectional` documentation
>> * Change the name of the formal parameter of `Property.bind` to "source"
>> (currently, it is inconsistently named "observable", "rawObservable" or
>> "newOb
On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 22:27:12 GMT, Kevin Rushforth wrote:
>> The following unit test demonstrated the *current* behavior, though maybe
>> it's not the desired one:
>>
>>
>> import static org.junit.Assert.*;
>>
>> import javafx.beans.property.IntegerProperty;
>> import javafx.beans.property.Sim
On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 12:33:52 GMT, Nir Lisker wrote:
>> Maybe we could simply the mental model of the property specification by
>> making it illegal in all cases to use unidirectional and bidirectional
>> bindings at the same time. The specification would be reduced to "it's
>> illegal", instea
On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 01:44:43 GMT, Michael Strauß wrote:
>> modules/javafx.base/src/main/java/javafx/beans/property/Property.java line
>> 111:
>>
>>> 109: * established. However, doing so is not a meaningful use of this
>>> API, because the
>>> 110: * unidirectionally bound property w
On Fri, 9 Jul 2021 22:17:21 GMT, Kevin Rushforth wrote:
>> Michael Strauß has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> changes as per review
>
> modules/javafx.base/src/main/java/javafx/beans/property/Property.java line
> 111:
>
>>
On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 01:53:53 GMT, Michael Strauß wrote:
>> * Expand the `Property.bind` and `Property.bindBidirectional` documentation
>> * Change the name of the formal parameter of `Property.bind` to "source"
>> (currently, it is inconsistently named "observable", "rawObservable" or
>> "newOb
On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 01:17:55 GMT, Nir Lisker wrote:
>> Michael Strauß has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> changes as per review
>
> modules/javafx.base/src/main/java/javafx/beans/property/Property.java line
> 120:
>
>> 118:
On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 02:35:37 GMT, Nir Lisker wrote:
>> That's an interesting observation. The way I read it, "the" sounds very
>> specific, like we're talking about a particular binding to a particular
>> source. However, `unbind()` doesn't only remove _one_ particular binding, it
>> removes _
On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 01:53:53 GMT, Michael Strauß wrote:
>> * Expand the `Property.bind` and `Property.bindBidirectional` documentation
>> * Change the name of the formal parameter of `Property.bind` to "source"
>> (currently, it is inconsistently named "observable", "rawObservable" or
>> "newOb
On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 01:53:53 GMT, Michael Strauß wrote:
>> * Expand the `Property.bind` and `Property.bindBidirectional` documentation
>> * Change the name of the formal parameter of `Property.bind` to "source"
>> (currently, it is inconsistently named "observable", "rawObservable" or
>> "newOb
On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 02:20:09 GMT, Michael Strauß wrote:
>> modules/javafx.base/src/main/java/javafx/beans/property/Property.java line
>> 68:
>>
>>> 66:
>>> 67: /**
>>> 68: * Removes a unidirectional binding that was established with
>>> {@link #bind(ObservableValue)}.
>>
>> Why "**a
On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 01:00:54 GMT, Nir Lisker wrote:
>> Michael Strauß has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> changes as per review
>
> modules/javafx.base/src/main/java/javafx/beans/property/Property.java line 68:
>
>> 66:
>>
> * Expand the `Property.bind` and `Property.bindBidirectional` documentation
> * Change the name of the formal parameter of `Property.bind` to "source"
> (currently, it is inconsistently named "observable", "rawObservable" or
> "newObservable")
Michael Strauß has updated the pull request increm
On Mon, 14 Jun 2021 17:06:34 GMT, Michael Strauß wrote:
> * Expand the `Property.bind` and `Property.bindBidirectional` documentation
> * Change the name of the formal parameter of `Property.bind` to "source"
> (currently, it is inconsistently named "observable", "rawObservable" or
> "newObserv
On Mon, 14 Jun 2021 17:06:34 GMT, Michael Strauß wrote:
> * Expand the `Property.bind` and `Property.bindBidirectional` documentation
> * Change the name of the formal parameter of `Property.bind` to "source"
> (currently, it is inconsistently named "observable", "rawObservable" or
> "newObserv
On Mon, 14 Jun 2021 17:06:34 GMT, Michael Strauß wrote:
> * Expand the `Property.bind` and `Property.bindBidirectional` documentation
> * Change the name of the formal parameter of `Property.bind` to "source"
> (currently, it is inconsistently named "observable", "rawObservable" or
> "newObserv
* Expand the `Property.bind` and `Property.bindBidirectional` documentation
* Change the name of the formal parameter of `Property.bind` to "source"
(currently, it is inconsistently named "observable", "rawObservable" or
"newObservable")
-
Commit messages:
- Expanded Property docum
19 matches
Mail list logo
