Edvin, I don't see the namespace code as being a huge problem. It a perfectly valid way to produce the example. It also is ideal for learning in that it doesn't require code signing without violating any fundamental language features like access protection (public,private,protected,default).
Adoption is contingent on functionality and ease of use. Using @BXML seems easier/better until you realize it carries with it the additional requirements. I think you may be overstating the difficulty/ugliness of the lookups. If you argued registry vs dependency injection I think I may have agreed more with you. Brent On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 4:46 PM, Edvin Syse <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Den 06.06.2011 22:27, skrev Greg Brown: > > Oh, I would like to add that it wasn't obvious why the BXML code didn't >>> work without signing. Perhaps more prominent indication in the tutorials or >>> BXML primer would be good. >>> >> >> Agreed. >> >> It's more likely, new users will just use the public syntax by >>> copy/pasting examples. >>> >> >> This is another good reason not to use public fields in the examples. >> > > That also means that people will copy the namespace.get() code instead of > using @BXML. You are signing some of the examples, why not just sign them > all and use @BXML all the way? Most applications needs to be/should be > signed anyway. >
