+1 this is my preference. It is useful for things other than FXML, and should
be considered part of our javafx.beans API.
> On Oct 16, 2013, at 4:20 AM, Tom Schindl <tom.schi...@bestsolution.at> wrote:
>
>> On 16.10.13 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?
>
> Option 2, but does it really have to hold FXML in the annotation name?
> Where would you put the annotation? I think it should NOT be in the
> FXML-Package-Namespace because the core should NOT depend on FXML!
>
> I'd go with @Argument or simply @NamedArgument (@Named is already used
> by javax.inject)
>
> Tom
