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 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 functionality to FXMLLoader
but we need to decide how the annotation will look like and I could use some
help with this.
We cannot use already existing ConstructorProperties for this, because it's
java.beans package and we don't want to create to dependency on this package in
JavaFX, so we need to introduce a new annotation.
We have two options:
1. Annotate the whole constructor:
e.g.
@ConstructorArguments({"a", "b", "list"})
public ImmutableClass(int a, int b, Integer... list)
2. Annotate the arguments:
e.g.
public ImmutableClass(@FXMLArgument("a") int a, @FXMLArgument("b")int b,
@FXMLArgument("list")Integer... list)
Which option do you like more and how should the annotation be named?
Thanks,
Eva
