Hi Alexander,
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 10:24 AM, Alexander Kouznetsov <
alexander.kouznet...@oracle.com> wrote:
> There are two other options you may want to consider:
>
> 1) Use XXXBinding as following:
>
> value.bind(new DoubleBinding() {
> { bind(widthProperty(), heightProperty()); }
>
> @Overr
There are two other options you may want to consider:
1) Use XXXBinding as following:
value.bind(new DoubleBinding() {
{ bind(widthProperty(), heightProperty()); }
@Override
protected Double computeValue() {
return widthProperty().get() * heightProperty().get
..@openjdk.java.net
>> [mailto:openjfx-dev-boun...@openjdk.java.net] On Behalf Of Tomas Mikula
>> Sent: Monday, December 16, 2013 9:19 AM
>> To: Richard Bair
>> Cc: openjfx-dev@openjdk.java.net
>> Subject: Re: [announce] InhiBeans: mitigate redundant recalculations
k.java.net
> [mailto:openjfx-dev-boun...@openjdk.java.net] On Behalf Of Tomas Mikula
> Sent: Monday, December 16, 2013 9:19 AM
> To: Richard Bair
> Cc: openjfx-dev@openjdk.java.net
> Subject: Re: [announce] InhiBeans: mitigate redundant recalculations
>
> As a matter of fact, I have. Only
@openjdk.java.net
Subject: Re: [announce] InhiBeans: mitigate redundant recalculations
As a matter of fact, I have. Only to the extent of the "Principles of Reactive
Programming" [1] course that is currently in progress on Coursera. From what I
have seen so far, it's all about asynchronous co
As a matter of fact, I have. Only to the extent of the "Principles of
Reactive Programming" [1] course that is currently in progress on
Coursera. From what I have seen so far, it's all about asynchronous
composition (with emphasis on both "asynchronous" and "composition").
I didn't see it addressin
Have you looked at https://github.com/Netflix/RxJava by chance? I've been dying
to see somebody do an RxJava in JavaFX ever since devoxx and it looks like you
may have inadvertently started down that path :-).
Richard
On Dec 16, 2013, at 8:09 AM, Tomas Mikula wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 1:47 AM, Tomas Mikula wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 1:07 AM, Scott Palmer wrote:
>> Interesting, no worse than John's pattern though.
>> I thought of using a try/finally to make sure release was called and that
>> naturally lead to thinking of try-with-resources, where
Point made.
Tom
On 2013-12-16 12:17, Tomas Mikula wrote:
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 7:56 AM, Tom Eugelink wrote:
I understand what you are trying to do. I was wondering if a more coarse
grained approach would be preferable, so a central registration of whether
or not to postpone change events.
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 12:17 PM, Tomas Mikula wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 7:56 AM, Tom Eugelink wrote:
>>
>> I understand what you are trying to do. I was wondering if a more coarse
>> grained approach would be preferable, so a central registration of whether
>> or not to postpone change ev
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 7:56 AM, Tom Eugelink wrote:
>
> I understand what you are trying to do. I was wondering if a more coarse
> grained approach would be preferable, so a central registration of whether
> or not to postpone change events.
>
> So:
> Central.postponeAllChangeEvents()
> Central.r
I understand what you are trying to do. I was wondering if a more coarse
grained approach would be preferable, so a central registration of whether or
not to postpone change events.
So:
Central.postponeAllChangeEvents()
Central.resumeAllChangeEvents()
Or maybe both:
p.postponeChangeEvents()
p
On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 8:30 PM, John Hendrikx wrote:
> Since you are only allowed to modify properties on the JavaFX thread (in
> most cases), I've been using Platform.runLater() to make sure I observe only
> complete changes.
>
> Basically I register an InvalidationListener on the properties tha
Good stuff! This is the sort of thing that might make a good contribution
to extend the standard Bindings class.
Scott
On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 5:49 PM, Tomas Mikula wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 6:39 PM, Scott Palmer wrote:
> > Interesting idea.
> >
> > There is a case I have been curious
On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 6:39 PM, Scott Palmer wrote:
> Interesting idea.
>
> There is a case I have been curious about and wonder what the best practices
> are for it. Suppose you have a case when you are changing multiple
> different properties that will be used in a single calculation. You wan
Yes, that does the trick, but this basically means you can't use bindings
for such things. I'm wondering if there might be an opportunity for
another enhancement similar to the block() resume() that Tomas has
implemented, but for receiving size of the notification mechanism.
Effectively it would
Since you are only allowed to modify properties on the JavaFX thread (in
most cases), I've been using Platform.runLater() to make sure I observe
only complete changes.
Basically I register an InvalidationListener on the properties that are
relevant, and when one gets triggered I set a boolean
Interesting idea.
There is a case I have been curious about and wonder what the best
practices are for it. Suppose you have a case when you are changing
multiple different properties that will be used in a single calculation.
You want to deal with a single change to all of them in one go. E.g.
18 matches
Mail list logo
