JavaFX and the Missing Interfaces

[Knut Arne Vedaa]

While you want

     NodeBase implements Node

but would be happy with

     Node implements SceneNode

I'd propose a third alternative (which I prefer to the first):

     Node implements NodeLike

This naming scheme is used a lot in Scala's standard library (but for 
traits and not interfaces, the former which can have concrete members).

Speaking of - if I understand your blog post correctly, what you want is 
this:

   trait IControl extends Control {
     def iCommonMethod = "something"
   }

   class ITextField extends TextField with IControl

   def fooBar(iControl: IControl) {
     iControl setTooltip new Tooltip("foo bar")
     iControl.iCommonMethod
   }

   fooBar(iTextField)

   val iTextField = new ITextField

   iTextField.iCommonMethod

Which is perfectly valid Scala code. So if you can't convince the powers 
that be to refactor the API, you have at least another option, hint hint. :)


Knut Arne Vedaa


On 05.11.2012 19:50, Randahl Fink Isaksen wrote:
> I have been struggling with a number of problems stemming from the way JavaFX is designed – specifically the lack of interfaces for many of the extension points in the class hierarchy.
>
> It takes some thorough explaining with code examples, so instead of just an unformatted e-mail I posted a more readable explanation of the problem on-line:
> Please read http://blog.randahl.dk/2012/11/javafx-and-missing-interfaces.html
>
> I hope we could have a constructive discussion on this matter on this list before I go ahead and file a Jira, so the Jira issue becomes the best possible basis for solving the design problem.
>
> Thanks
>
> Randahl
>