SimpleStyleable<Foo>Properties API Questions

[Danno Ferrin]

>

> > 2.  Why does it extend from Simple<Foo>Property instead of
> > Styleable<Foo>Property?  Just an implementation convenience?  I think it
> > would be more valuable to extend from the Styleable property than the
> > Simple property, since simple only adds implementation but styleable adds
> > implementation for a new interface.  I see myself adding more
> > StyleableDoubleProperties that are backed by a Simple varient than a
> > SimpleDoubleProperty backed by the styleable variant.
> >
>
> Because we want SimpleStyleable<Foo>Property to be a Simple<Foo>Property
> _and_ a StyleableProperty. It is the only way to do it since
> Simple<Foo>Property is a class and StyleableProperty is an interface. To do
> it the other way around would require that the SimpleStyleable<Foo>Property
> re-implement the entire Simple<Foo>Property API - <Foo>PropertyBase,
> <Foo>Property, ReadOnly<Foo>Property and so on.
>
> I can understand that you want to be able to do 'StyleableDoubleProperty
> foo = new SimpleStyleableDoubleProperty(FOO);'  But you can do
> 'StyleableProperty<Double> foo = new SimpleStyleableDoubleProperty(FOO);'
>
>
I want it to be a Simple<Foo>Porperty and a Styleable<Foo>Property, you
missed the <foo> on the styleable, very important.  Both of these classes
derive from <Foo>PropertyBase, so they both save a lot of overhead there.
 It is the implementation in the specialization where the horse trading
occurs. The implementation overhead for Simple<Foo>Property is 3 one-line
constructors, two fields, and two one line methods for those fields.  The
implementation overhead for SimpleStyleable<Foo>Property is 4 constructors,
5 methods, and a total of 8 lines, and two fields.  Really slightly more
code duplication and work is being done for the current hierarchy.


-- 
Danno