On Fri, 27 May 2022 23:31:42 GMT, Kevin Rushforth wrote:
> I reviewed the public API changes, and this looks like a great addition to
> JavaFX bindings. I think there might be time to get this into JavaFX 19,
> presuming that there are no issues with the testing or implementation, so
> let's p
> This is an implementation of the proposal in
> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8274771 that me and Nir Lisker
> (@nlisker) have been working on. It's a complete implementation including
> good test coverage.
>
> This was based on https://github.com/openjdk/jfx/pull/434 but with a
On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 07:46:40 GMT, John Hendrikx wrote:
>> This is an implementation of the proposal in
>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8274771 that me and Nir Lisker
>> (@nlisker) have been working on. It's a complete implementation including
>> good test coverage.
>>
>> This w
On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 07:46:40 GMT, John Hendrikx wrote:
>> This is an implementation of the proposal in
>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8274771 that me and Nir Lisker
>> (@nlisker) have been working on. It's a complete implementation including
>> good test coverage.
>>
>> This w
On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 20:17:36 GMT, Kevin Rushforth wrote:
>> John Hendrikx has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Fix wording
>
> Yes, I definitely want to be one of the reviewers. I'll need to review the
> CSR in any case.
@ke
On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 17:06:12 GMT, yosbits wrote:
> The reason I think the Null Safe explanation is incorrect is because In the
> interest of fairness, I feel it would be better to have an example of using
> the Optional API when comparing the existing way of writing to the new way of
> writing
On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 07:46:40 GMT, John Hendrikx wrote:
>> This is an implementation of the proposal in
>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8274771 that me and Nir Lisker
>> (@nlisker) have been working on. It's a complete implementation including
>> good test coverage.
>>
>> This w
On Thu, 18 Nov 2021 21:38:28 GMT, Kevin Rushforth wrote:
>> This is an implementation of the proposal in
>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8274771 that me and Nir Lisker
>> (@nlisker) have been working on. It's a complete implementation including
>> good test coverage.
>>
>> This
On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 07:46:40 GMT, John Hendrikx wrote:
>> This is an implementation of the proposal in
>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8274771 that me and Nir Lisker
>> (@nlisker) have been working on. It's a complete implementation including
>> good test coverage.
>>
>> This w
On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 07:46:40 GMT, John Hendrikx wrote:
>> This is an implementation of the proposal in
>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8274771 that me and Nir Lisker
>> (@nlisker) have been working on. It's a complete implementation including
>> good test coverage.
>>
>> This w
On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 12:38:43 GMT, yosbits wrote:
> This PR is considered a design change that delegates multiple
> responsibilities to the basic JavaFX class ObservableValue. The balance
> between implementation complexity and convenience seems to be a point of
> contention.
If you could do a
On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 07:46:40 GMT, John Hendrikx wrote:
>> This is an implementation of the proposal in
>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8274771 that me and Nir Lisker
>> (@nlisker) have been working on. It's a complete implementation including
>> good test coverage.
>>
>> This w
On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 02:21:05 GMT, yosbits wrote:
> I think you are incorrect about the Null Safe explanation. Wouldn't using
> Optional solve this?
I'm not sure what you are trying to say, the fluent bindings offered by this
API are null safe. Using standard JavaFX you have to do additional w
On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 21:49:33 GMT, Nir Lisker wrote:
>> John Hendrikx has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Small wording change in API of ObservableValue after proof reading
>
> modules/javafx.base/src/main/java/javafx/beans/va
> This is an implementation of the proposal in
> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8274771 that me and Nir Lisker
> (@nlisker) have been working on. It's a complete implementation including
> good test coverage.
>
> This was based on https://github.com/openjdk/jfx/pull/434 but with a
On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 08:59:34 GMT, John Hendrikx wrote:
>> This is an implementation of the proposal in
>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8274771 that me and Nir Lisker
>> (@nlisker) have been working on. It's a complete implementation including
>> good test coverage.
>>
>> This w
On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 08:59:34 GMT, John Hendrikx wrote:
>> This is an implementation of the proposal in
>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8274771 that me and Nir Lisker
>> (@nlisker) have been working on. It's a complete implementation including
>> good test coverage.
>>
>> This w
On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 08:59:34 GMT, John Hendrikx wrote:
>> This is an implementation of the proposal in
>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8274771 that me and Nir Lisker
>> (@nlisker) have been working on. It's a complete implementation including
>> good test coverage.
>>
>> This w
On Fri, 18 Mar 2022 11:12:55 GMT, Tom Schindl wrote:
>> John Hendrikx has updated the pull request incrementally with five
>> additional commits since the last revision:
>>
>> - Reword flat map docs a bit and fixed a link
>> - Add missing javadoc tags
>> - Clean up docs in Subscription
>> -
On Sun, 20 Mar 2022 03:08:59 GMT, Nir Lisker wrote:
>> Both seem fine, I don't have any preference over one or the other.
>
> I struggled with finding a good description here
> [previously](https://github.com/openjdk/jfx/pull/675#discussion_r777801130).
> I think that mstr2 gave a good approach
On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 09:01:01 GMT, John Hendrikx wrote:
>> I read this comment after what I wrote about `flatMap`, so mstr2 also had
>> the idea of "More precisely", which is good :)
>>
>> I would suggested something similar to what I did there:
>>
>>
>> Creates a new {@code ObservableValue} t
On Sun, 20 Mar 2022 03:28:01 GMT, Nir Lisker wrote:
>> Yeah, agreed, it is a bit annoying to have to deal with the fact that these
>> classes are wrappers around an actual value and having to refer to them as
>> such to be "precise". I'm willing to make another pass at all of these to
>> chan
> This is an implementation of the proposal in
> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8274771 that me and Nir Lisker
> (@nlisker) have been working on. It's a complete implementation including
> good test coverage.
>
> This was based on https://github.com/openjdk/jfx/pull/434 but with a
> This is an implementation of the proposal in
> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8274771 that me and Nir Lisker
> (@nlisker) have been working on. It's a complete implementation including
> good test coverage.
>
> This was based on https://github.com/openjdk/jfx/pull/434 but with a
On Sun, 20 Mar 2022 03:28:01 GMT, Nir Lisker wrote:
>> Yeah, agreed, it is a bit annoying to have to deal with the fact that these
>> classes are wrappers around an actual value and having to refer to them as
>> such to be "precise". I'm willing to make another pass at all of these to
>> chan
On Fri, 18 Mar 2022 09:55:30 GMT, John Hendrikx wrote:
>> modules/javafx.base/src/main/java/javafx/beans/value/ObservableValue.java
>> line 146:
>>
>>> 144: * Creates an {@code ObservableValue} that holds the result of
>>> applying a
>>> 145: * mapping on this {@code ObservableValue}
On Fri, 18 Mar 2022 23:55:36 GMT, Michael Strauß wrote:
>> I've changed this to use your wording as I think it does read much better.
>>
>> Perhaps also possible:
>>
>> Creates a new {@code ObservableValue} that holds the value of a nested
>> {@code ObservableValue} supplied
>> by
On Fri, 18 Mar 2022 10:17:01 GMT, John Hendrikx wrote:
>> modules/javafx.base/src/main/java/javafx/beans/value/ObservableValue.java
>> line 197:
>>
>>> 195: /**
>>> 196: * Creates an {@code ObservableValue} that holds the value of an
>>> {@code ObservableValue}
>>> 197: * resulti
On Fri, 18 Mar 2022 09:32:18 GMT, John Hendrikx wrote:
>> modules/javafx.base/src/main/java/javafx/beans/value/FlatMappedBinding.java
>> line 68:
>>
>>> 66: };
>>> 67: }
>>> 68: }
>>
>> Several files are missing newlines after the last closing brace. Do we
>> enforce this?
>>
>>
On Fri, 18 Mar 2022 09:48:39 GMT, John Hendrikx wrote:
>> modules/javafx.base/src/main/java/com/sun/javafx/binding/Subscription.java
>> line 67:
>>
>>> 65: */
>>> 66: default Subscription and(Subscription other) {
>>> 67: Objects.requireNonNull(other);
>>
>> This exception cou
On Fri, 18 Mar 2022 10:32:36 GMT, John Hendrikx wrote:
>> This is an implementation of the proposal in
>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8274771 that me and Nir Lisker
>> (@nlisker) have been working on. It's a complete implementation including
>> good test coverage.
>>
>> This w
> This is an implementation of the proposal in
> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8274771 that me and Nir Lisker
> (@nlisker) have been working on. It's a complete implementation including
> good test coverage.
>
> This was based on https://github.com/openjdk/jfx/pull/434 but with a
On Thu, 17 Mar 2022 20:09:23 GMT, Michael Strauß wrote:
>> John Hendrikx has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Process review comments (2)
>
> modules/javafx.base/src/main/java/com/sun/javafx/binding/Subscription.java
> line 4
On Thu, 10 Mar 2022 17:49:38 GMT, John Hendrikx wrote:
>> This is an implementation of the proposal in
>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8274771 that me and Nir Lisker
>> (@nlisker) have been working on. It's a complete implementation including
>> good test coverage.
>>
>> This w
On Thu, 10 Mar 2022 17:49:38 GMT, John Hendrikx wrote:
>> This is an implementation of the proposal in
>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8274771 that me and Nir Lisker
>> (@nlisker) have been working on. It's a complete implementation including
>> good test coverage.
>>
>> This w
On Thu, 10 Mar 2022 14:21:15 GMT, Nir Lisker wrote:
>> modules/javafx.base/src/test/java/test/javafx/beans/value/ObservableValueFluentBindingsTest.java
>> line 648:
>>
>>> 646:
>>> 647: /**
>>> 648: * Ensures nothing has been observed.
>>
>> "Ensures nothing has been observed since t
On Thu, 10 Mar 2022 17:49:38 GMT, John Hendrikx wrote:
>> This is an implementation of the proposal in
>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8274771 that me and Nir Lisker
>> (@nlisker) have been working on. It's a complete implementation including
>> good test coverage.
>>
>> This w
> This is an implementation of the proposal in
> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8274771 that me and Nir Lisker
> (@nlisker) have been working on. It's a complete implementation including
> good test coverage.
>
> This was based on https://github.com/openjdk/jfx/pull/434 but with a
On Thu, 10 Mar 2022 05:44:35 GMT, John Hendrikx wrote:
>> This is an implementation of the proposal in
>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8274771 that me and Nir Lisker
>> (@nlisker) have been working on. It's a complete implementation including
>> good test coverage.
>>
>> This w
On Tue, 8 Mar 2022 21:03:12 GMT, Nir Lisker wrote:
>> John Hendrikx has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Fix wrong test values
>
> modules/javafx.base/src/test/java/test/javafx/beans/value/ObservableValueFluentBindingsTest.jav
On Tue, 8 Mar 2022 20:57:53 GMT, Nir Lisker wrote:
>> John Hendrikx has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Fix wrong test values
>
> modules/javafx.base/src/test/java/test/javafx/beans/value/ObservableValueFluentBindingsTest.jav
> This is an implementation of the proposal in
> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8274771 that me and Nir Lisker
> (@nlisker) have been working on. It's a complete implementation including
> good test coverage.
>
> This was based on https://github.com/openjdk/jfx/pull/434 but with a
On Tue, 8 Mar 2022 21:10:46 GMT, Nir Lisker wrote:
>> John Hendrikx has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Fix wrong test values
>
> modules/javafx.base/src/test/java/test/javafx/beans/value/ObservableValueFluentBindingsTest.jav
On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 21:49:07 GMT, John Hendrikx wrote:
>> This is an implementation of the proposal in
>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8274771 that me and Nir Lisker
>> (@nlisker) have been working on. It's a complete implementation including
>> good test coverage.
>>
>> This w
> This is an implementation of the proposal in
> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8274771 that me and Nir Lisker
> (@nlisker) have been working on. It's a complete implementation including
> good test coverage.
>
> This was based on https://github.com/openjdk/jfx/pull/434 but with a
On Sun, 16 Jan 2022 22:01:33 GMT, Nir Lisker wrote:
> * Most tests that I have seen in JavaFX use the assert overloads that include
> a message that explains what the value should be or what it means if the
> assertion failed. I don't know how much of a requirement it is. I can help
> write th
> This is an implementation of the proposal in
> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8274771 that me and Nir Lisker
> (@nlisker) have been working on. It's a complete implementation including
> good test coverage.
>
> This was based on https://github.com/openjdk/jfx/pull/434 but with a
On Thu, 20 Jan 2022 17:19:49 GMT, Nir Lisker wrote:
>> John Hendrikx has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Fix grammar mistakes and did some small rephrases
>
> modules/javafx.base/src/main/java/javafx/beans/value/LazyObjectBin
> This is an implementation of the proposal in
> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8274771 that me and Nir Lisker
> (@nlisker) have been working on. It's a complete implementation including
> good test coverage.
>
> This was based on https://github.com/openjdk/jfx/pull/434 but with a
On Sun, 16 Jan 2022 12:25:13 GMT, Nir Lisker wrote:
>> John Hendrikx has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Fix grammar mistakes and did some small rephrases
>
> modules/javafx.base/src/main/java/javafx/beans/value/ObservableVal
On Mon, 10 Jan 2022 21:09:15 GMT, John Hendrikx wrote:
>> This is an implementation of the proposal in
>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8274771 that me and Nir Lisker
>> (@nlisker) have been working on. It's a complete implementation including
>> good test coverage.
>>
>> This w
On Mon, 10 Jan 2022 21:09:15 GMT, John Hendrikx wrote:
>> This is an implementation of the proposal in
>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8274771 that me and Nir Lisker
>> (@nlisker) have been working on. It's a complete implementation including
>> good test coverage.
>>
>> This w
On Thu, 6 Jan 2022 16:25:33 GMT, Nir Lisker wrote:
>> John Hendrikx has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Apply changes suggested in review and updated copyright years to 2022
>
> modules/javafx.base/src/main/java/javafx/beans/
> This is an implementation of the proposal in
> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8274771 that me and Nir Lisker
> (@nlisker) have been working on. It's a complete implementation including
> good test coverage.
>
> This was based on https://github.com/openjdk/jfx/pull/434 but with a
On Wed, 5 Jan 2022 12:29:01 GMT, John Hendrikx wrote:
>> This is an implementation of the proposal in
>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8274771 that me and Nir Lisker
>> (@nlisker) have been working on. It's a complete implementation including
>> good test coverage.
>>
>> This wa
On Wed, 5 Jan 2022 10:51:28 GMT, John Hendrikx wrote:
>> modules/javafx.base/src/main/java/javafx/beans/value/ObservableValue.java
>> line 152:
>>
>>> 150: * @return an {@link ObservableValue} which provides a mapping of
>>> the value
>>> 151: * held by this {@code ObservableValu
On Wed, 5 Jan 2022 12:29:01 GMT, John Hendrikx wrote:
>> This is an implementation of the proposal in
>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8274771 that me and Nir Lisker
>> (@nlisker) have been working on. It's a complete implementation including
>> good test coverage.
>>
>> This wa
On Tue, 4 Jan 2022 03:28:57 GMT, Nir Lisker wrote:
> Unrelated to the review, will it makes sense in the future to make all
> bindings lazily register listeners like `LazyObjectBinding`, perhaps when we
> introduce `Subscription`?
That would need to be very well tested. There are some noticeab
On Wed, 5 Jan 2022 12:08:01 GMT, John Hendrikx wrote:
>> modules/javafx.base/src/main/java/javafx/beans/value/ObservableValue.java
>> line 188:
>>
>>> 186: * {@code ObservableValue} given by applying {@code mapper} on
>>> the value
>>> 187: * held by this {@code ObservableVal
On Wed, 5 Jan 2022 09:52:29 GMT, John Hendrikx wrote:
>> modules/javafx.base/src/main/java/javafx/beans/binding/ObjectBinding.java
>> line 204:
>>
>>> 202: *
>>> 203: * @return {@code true} if this binding is allowed to become
>>> valid, otherwise
>>> 204: * {@code false}
>>
On Wed, 5 Jan 2022 09:45:21 GMT, John Hendrikx wrote:
>> modules/javafx.base/src/main/java/javafx/beans/binding/ObjectBinding.java
>> line 193:
>>
>>> 191: *
>>> 192: * @return {@code true} when this binding currently has one or more
>>> 193: * listeners, otherwise {@code fal
On Sun, 2 Jan 2022 20:18:02 GMT, Nir Lisker wrote:
>> John Hendrikx has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Upgrade tests to JUnit 5
>
> modules/javafx.base/src/main/java/javafx/beans/binding/ObjectBinding.java
> line 193:
>
>>
> This is an implementation of the proposal in
> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8274771 that me and Nir Lisker
> (@nlisker) have been working on. It's a complete implementation including
> good test coverage.
>
> This was based on https://github.com/openjdk/jfx/pull/434 but with a
On Wed, 15 Dec 2021 11:43:36 GMT, John Hendrikx wrote:
>> This is an implementation of the proposal in
>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8274771 that me and Nir Lisker
>> (@nlisker) have been working on. It's a complete implementation including
>> good test coverage.
>>
>> This w
On Wed, 15 Dec 2021 11:43:36 GMT, John Hendrikx wrote:
>> This is an implementation of the proposal in
>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8274771 that me and Nir Lisker
>> (@nlisker) have been working on. It's a complete implementation including
>> good test coverage.
>>
>> This w
On Wed, 15 Dec 2021 11:43:36 GMT, John Hendrikx wrote:
>> This is an implementation of the proposal in
>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8274771 that me and Nir Lisker
>> (@nlisker) have been working on. It's a complete implementation including
>> good test coverage.
>>
>> This w
> This is an implementation of the proposal in
> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8274771 that me and Nir Lisker
> (@nlisker) have been working on. It's a complete implementation including
> good test coverage.
>
> This was based on https://github.com/openjdk/jfx/pull/434 but with a
On Wed, 15 Dec 2021 11:36:23 GMT, John Hendrikx wrote:
>> This is an implementation of the proposal in
>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8274771 that me and Nir Lisker
>> (@nlisker) have been working on. It's a complete implementation including
>> good test coverage.
>>
>> This w
> This is an implementation of the proposal in
> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8274771 that me and Nir Lisker
> (@nlisker) have been working on. It's a complete implementation including
> good test coverage.
>
> This was based on https://github.com/openjdk/jfx/pull/434 but with a
On Thu, 18 Nov 2021 21:38:28 GMT, Kevin Rushforth wrote:
>> This is an implementation of the proposal in
>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8274771 that me and Nir Lisker
>> (@nlisker) have been working on. It's a complete implementation including
>> good test coverage.
>>
>> This
On Thu, 18 Nov 2021 20:58:06 GMT, John Hendrikx wrote:
> This is an implementation of the proposal in
> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8274771 that me and Nir Lisker
> (@nlisker) have been working on. It's a complete implementation including
> good test coverage.
>
> This was bas
This is an implementation of the proposal in
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8274771 that me and Nir Lisker
(@nlisker) have been working on. It's a complete implementation including good
test coverage.
This was based on https://github.com/openjdk/jfx/pull/434 but with a smaller
API
72 matches
Mail list logo
