JavaFX and the Missing Interfaces

[Daniel Zwolenski]

> Maybe somebody can show how this would work in more concrete terms? I
> don't even see how it would be practical at all.
>

As in how it would be used by end developers and to what benefit, or as in
how to make it workable in the current JFX codebase?



> Richard
>
> On Nov 5, 2012, at 12:20 PM, Daniel Zwolenski <zonski at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > I think we've had this conversation before. Maybe something to do with
> interfaces being too brittle where if you add a method anyone implementing
> it will now be missing a method, whereas with a base class they can add a
> stub method?
> >
> > Other frameworks use interfaces extensively though (eg Spring,
> java.util.Collections), generally with positive outcomes.
> >
> >
> >
> > On 06/11/2012, at 5:50 AM, Randahl Fink Isaksen <randahl at rockit.dk>
> 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
>
>