n Rushforth
> Subject: Re: Cylinder divisions and PerspectiveCamera fixedEyePosition
> should be mutable
> To: Richard Bair
> Cc: "openjfx-dev@openjdk.java.net list"
> Message-ID: <524f2ed3.7060...@oracle.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; chars
Sounds good.
Depends on whether it is usable from SceneBuilder and FXML, and the
following:
- We must *not* expose a ReadOnly property for these properties
(and I don't think we do)
No, we don't.
- The FXML changes must be backwards compatible (they should be but
we need to verify)
Depends on whether it is usable from SceneBuilder and FXML, and the following:
- We must *not* expose a ReadOnly property for these properties (and I don't
think we do)
- The FXML changes must be backwards compatible (they should be but we need
to verify)
- The SceneBuilder can do someth
Certainly for divisions there is no reason to keep them immutable. For
fixedEyeAtCameraZero, I don't think the reasons for keeping it immutable
are compelling.
Making either change in FX 8 is a different matter, though, given how
late we are. The implementation assumes immutability and we woul
I would turn that around and say that unless there is a compelling reason for
something to be immutable, it should be mutable. Mutability is important for
tools as well as for FXML as well as for developers.
Immutable state is awesome for thread-safety or any type of concurrency. But
these type
Yes, that pretty much captures the thinking behind it.
My thought is that there is no real reason that subdivisions need to be
immutable, although I wouldn't want to change it at this late date for
FX 8 unless it is needed for FXML support.
The fixedEyeAtCameraZero mode is not something I thi
We did discuss making divisions in the predefined 3D shapes mutable in
earlier meeting. However we decided against it since it is a heavy
weight operation as the supporting mesh will has to be regenerated. I
believe the constructor with the divisions argument will not have much
use in the futur
