API REVIEW request for RT-19783: Provide an option to allow modal windows to be blocking

[Kevin Rushforth]

Both. What you propose would be a much bigger design change, and I am 
not sold on the need anyway. Also, there is a strong desire to not break 
compatibility.

-- Kevin


Jeff McDonald wrote:
> Seriously? So backwards compatibility is a requirement of JavaFX at this
> point? Or are you saying that the benefit of the proposal doesn't outweigh
> breaking backwards compatibility?
>
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Kevin Rushforth <
> kevin.rushforth at oracle.com> wrote:
>
>   
>>> This will break the backwards compat of a stage so I think it is too
>>> late for such an API.
>>>
>>>       
>> Right. We need to keep the existing API unmodified. Adding a single method
>> is the easiest way to compatibly extend the API and keep the ideas of
>> modality separate from whether or not the caller is blocked.
>>
>>
>> -- Kevin
>>
>>
>> Tom Schindl wrote:
>>
>>     
>>> Am 11.04.12 18:58, schrieb Jeff McDonald:
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>>>> I put together a truth table of sorts to help me visualize the possible
>>>> states. It's an ASCII chart so it needs to be viewed using a monspaced
>>>> font
>>>> for everything to line up.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> +-----------------------------**---+--------------------------**
>>>> --------------+---------------**-----------------------------+
>>>>    | Modality.NONE                  | Modality.WINDOW
>>>>   | Modality.APPLICATION                       |
>>>>    | initModality(Modality.NONE)    | initModality(Modality.WINDOW_**
>>>> MODAL)
>>>>   | initModality(Modality.WINDOW_**MODAL)        |
>>>> +-------------------+---------**-----------------------+------**
>>>> ------------------------------**----+-------------------------**
>>>> -------------------+
>>>> | un-blocked        | Supported (This is typical)    | Supported
>>>>                   | Supported                                  |
>>>> | show()            | 1. initModality(Modality.NONE) | 1.
>>>> initModality(Modality.WINDOW_**MODAL) | 1.
>>>> initModality(Modality.WINDOW_**MODAL)     |
>>>> |                   | 2. show()                      | 2. show()
>>>>                   | 2. show()                                  |
>>>> |                   | or just                        |
>>>>                   |                                            |
>>>> |                   | 1. show()                      |
>>>>                   |                                            |
>>>> +-------------------+---------**-----------------------+------**
>>>> ------------------------------**----+-------------------------**
>>>> -------------------+
>>>> | blocked           | Unsupported                    | Supported
>>>>                   | Supported                                  |
>>>> | showAndWait()     | Throws exception               | 1.
>>>> initModality(Modality.WINDOW_**MODAL) | 1.
>>>> initModality(Modality.**APPLICATION_MODAL)|
>>>> | (proposed)        |                                | 2. showAndWait()
>>>>                  | 2. showAndWait()                           |
>>>> +-------------------+---------**-----------------------+------**
>>>> ------------------------------**----+-------------------------**
>>>> -------------------+
>>>>
>>>> I propose the following changes:
>>>> 1. show() remains the same as it is now.
>>>> 2. add showWindowModal(boolean wait)
>>>> 3. add showAppModal(boolean wait)
>>>> 4. remove initModality()
>>>> 5. Add Tom's description of "modal" and "blocking" to the JavaDocs. His
>>>> wording is clear and concise.
>>>>
>>>> The justification: The API is clearer and easier to understand because
>>>> only
>>>> one method call is required to execute the desired behavior instead of
>>>> two
>>>> method calls. The second benefit is that a single method call eliminates
>>>> the potential of calling the initModality and show() / showAndWait()
>>>> methods in the incorrect order.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> This will break the backwards compat of a stage so I think it is too
>>> late for such an API.
>>>
>>> Tom
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>