I second what John and Michael say (provide more APIs in OpenJFX that can only realistically be implemented in OpenJFX).
I believe the experience from Robert as the creator of ValidatorFX is extremely valuable to this. The key question that might help to see what we need here is: "What would have made it easier to create ValidatorFX (I hear the point of not using final everywhere)?" - Johan On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 10:03 AM Michael Strauß <michaelstr...@gmail.com> wrote: > I would not be in favor of adding any particular data validation > framework to JavaFX. Data validation comes in all kinds of different > shapes and sizes, which makes it a good fit for (opinionated) > third-party libraries. However, I fully agree with John that JavaFX > should provide more APIs that can only realistically be implemented in > FX. I've proposed a "significant interaction" API, which is crucial > for many data validation scenarios: > https://mail.openjdk.org/pipermail/openjfx-dev/2023-March/039327.html > > > On Fri, Mar 1, 2024 at 12:50 PM Dirk Lemmermann <dlemmerm...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > I updated the validation framework ValidatorFX today in our project to > the latest release and I really like it a lot. It is a small compact API > and works with any observable as opposed to the validation support provided > by ControlsFX. > > > > Using it made me wonder whether it would make sense to bundle it or > something like it directly with JavaFX. Developers often mention missing > validation support as a drawback of using JavaFX. Adding this would take > one item off from the list of arguments against using JavaFX. > > > > Many UI frameworks do have built-in validation support, e.g. Vaadin [0], > Angular, [1], or QT [2] > > > > What do you think? > > > > —Dirk > > > > [0] > https://vaadin.com/docs/latest/binding-data/components-binder-validation > > [1] https://angular.io/guide/form-validation > > [2] https://doc.qt.io/qt-6/qtquick-input-textinput.html > > >
