+1
> Am 16.10.2013 um 19:28 schrieb "Richard Bair" <richard.b...@oracle.com>:
>
> Looks good to me.
>
>> On Oct 16, 2013, at 10:02 AM, Stephen F Northover
>> <steve.x.northo...@oracle.com> wrote:
>>
>> It seems we are settling on @NamedArgument ... anybody disagree strongly?
>>
>> Steve
>>
>>> On 2013-10-16 11:45 AM, Richard Bair wrote:
>>> Ya that works too.
>>>
>>>> On Oct 16, 2013, at 8:41 AM, Eva Krejcirova <eva.krejcir...@oracle.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Good point!
>>>> In FX sources, we already use the @Default annotation which was used by
>>>> annotation processor when generating the builders. Because of this, it has
>>>> source retention policy, so it cannot be used by FXMLLoader. I was
>>>> thinking about promoting this to runtime annotation but maybe your
>>>> solution is better.
>>>>
>>>> We should solve this for FX8 otherwise the FXMLLoader will behave
>>>> differently from how the generated builders behaved.
>>>>
>>>> Eva
>>>>
>>>>> On 16.10.2013 17:24, Tom Schindl wrote:
>>>>> One thing that just came to my mind is that maybe also need a way to
>>>>> define the default value to be used, with a builder I could e.g. define
>>>>> that the default for fields are different from their real native default.
>>>>>
>>>>> class MyBuilder {
>>>>> private boolean a = true;
>>>>> private int x = -1;
>>>>> private Insets i = new Insets(10);
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> If we want to have a full replacement for builders the annotation must
>>>>> have the possibility define this (in future).
>>>>>
>>>>> public @interface NamedArgument {
>>>>> String value();
>>>>> String defaultValue();
>>>>> Class<Converter> converterClass();
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> If no converterClass is given we'd have to do our best to auto-convert
>>>>> the String. I don't want to say that we should implement the default
>>>>> value definition in FX8 but it would feel more natural with an
>>>>> annotation per argument.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tom
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 16.10.13 17:12, Tom Schindl wrote:
>>>>>> To me the JavaBean solution with one annotation looks error prone, does
>>>>>> anybody know why they did not use an annotation per field?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tom
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 16.10.13 16:58, Stephen F Northover wrote:
>>>>>>> +1 for base. Should we not follow closely what Java Beans is doing for
>>>>>>> consistency? I realize that we can't have the reference.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Steve
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2013-10-16 10:53 AM, Kevin Rushforth wrote:
>>>>>>>> Not to mention Tom's point that it can't be in the fxml module without
>>>>>>>> created unwanted (and circular) module dependencies. Seems like it
>>>>>>>> needs to be in the "base" module then, right?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -- Kevin
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Richard Bair wrote:
>>>>>>>>> +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
>>
