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 it was not
possible to specify that we need it only for constructors, so the class
files then contain names of arguments of all methods even if we don't
need them.
Eva
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
