My proposal in the PR was 'updateWhen', which I prefer over observedWhen
and activeWhen. Just 'when' is also fine by me and prefered over 'when'.
My only problem with 'when'/'whenever' is that they don't say what happens
"when"/"whenever". However, since these are bindings, and what bindings do
is update a bound value based on the binding, it's rather hinted what
happens.
On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 1:03 AM Kevin Rushforth <kevin.rushfo...@oracle.com>
wrote:
> My initial reaction is that I like the name "activeWhen" at least as
> well as any of the alternatives discussed so far. It's less wordy than
> "observedWhen" (which I suggested), and probably easier to describe. I
> don't really care for using the term "scope".
>
> I also think "when" or "whenever" are acceptable, but I know some don't
> like them.
>
> I think the leading candidates are:
>
> activeWhen
> whenever
> when
> observedWhen
>
> Unless someone can come up with a better name that can be easily
> described, I recommend picking one of these.
>
> -- Kevin
>
>
> On 11/21/2022 2:36 PM, Michael Strauß wrote:
> > Thanks for your clarifications.
> > Maybe the actual problem is that we don't have a good name for "gets
> > the current value, but doesn't subscribe to updates".
> > We could call bindings "active" when changes of the source value are
> > processed, and "inactive" if the binding exists, but doesn't process
> > changes.
> > With a documented definition of "active", the method could simply be
> > named `activeWhen`.
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 10:57 PM John Hendrikx <john.hendr...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> Hi Michael,
> >>
> >> Thanks for your suggestion.
> >>
> >> The effect is not quite what you describe however, as the initial value
> >> when the operation is first invoked is retained. It's true however that
> >> when the condition is always `false` that the value will be a constant,
> >> and that when it is always `true` it effectively is just a duplicate of
> >> the left hand observable. Let me illustrate:
> >>
> >> public static void main(String[] args) {
> >> StringProperty sp = new SimpleStringProperty("foo");
> >> BooleanProperty active = new SimpleBooleanProperty(false); //
> >> inactive
> >> ObservableValue<String> x = sp.when(active); // holds "foo"
> >> despite being inactive
> >>
> >> System.out.println(x.getValue()); // prints "foo"
> >>
> >> sp.set("bar");
> >>
> >> System.out.println(x.getValue()); // still prints "foo"
> >>
> >> active.set(true);
> >>
> >> System.out.println(x.getValue()); // prints "bar"
> >> }
> >>
> >> This behavior doesn't violate the rule that the new binding shouldn't
> >> observe its source when the condition is false as no listener was
> >> involved to get the initial value. The initial value is important as
> >> all bindings must have some kind of value. The docs do describe this in
> >> the first sentence:
> >>
> >> "Returns an {@code ObservableValue} that holds this value and is updated
> >> only when {@code condition} holds {@code true}"
> >>
> >> I think `withScope` could work (or `scopedTo`) but not sure if "scope"
> >> itself is a good description -- we'd need to update the description to
> >> use the word scope in a way that makes clear what it does preferably
> >> without having to resort to "updated only when" or "only observes when":
> >> ie: "Returns an ObservableValue that is scoped to the given condition" ?
> >>
> >> --John
>
>
