SimpleStyleable<Foo>Properties API Questions

[Danno Ferrin]

Here is a JIRA for the issue:

http://javafx-jira.kenai.com/browse/RT-28997

And here is a patch:

https://bitbucket.org/shemnon/openjfx-8-master-rt/commits/ad6fa36eb9580babe265dddadc16b2c4b78ad9ee


On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Danno Ferrin <danno.ferrin at shemnon.com>wrote:

> Rather than deriving from Simple and adding the Styleable implementations,
> it would derive from Styleable and add the Simple implementations.  I'll
> try and get a patch together tonight demonstrating it.
>
> But the advantage then is that I am more likely in my code to expose
> StyleableDoubleProperties and implement them with
> SimpleStyleableDoubleProperties.  Then at a later date, if I need some more
> exposure into the styling life cycle I can change the backing impl.  The
> advantage over that and, say StyleableProperty<Double> is that the generic
> isn't subject to erasure and reification contortions.  Who would ever
> expose SimpleDoubleProperty in their API?  But I do see people exposing
> StyleableDoubleProperty in an API.
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 9:20 AM, David Grieve <david.grieve at oracle.com>wrote:
>
>> I'm sorry. I must really be misunderstanding what it is you are
>> suggesting. I don't know how you can have SimpleStyleable<Foo>Property
>> extend both Styleable<Foo>Property and Simple<Foo>Property.
>>
>> On Mar 14, 2013, at 10:15 AM, Danno Ferrin <danno.ferrin at shemnon.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >
>>
>>> > 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
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> There is nothing that will hold me back.  I know who I am....
> I remember wher I came from, and I feel stronger for knowing.
> Zane, Ninja of Ice.  Ninjago S01E07
>



-- 
There is nothing that will hold me back.  I know who I am....
I remember wher I came from, and I feel stronger for knowing.
Zane, Ninja of Ice.  Ninjago S01E07