Constructor annotation

[Eva Krejcirova]

Hi Jack,

On 16.10.2013 13:12, Jack Moxley wrote:
> I would prefer @FXMLConstructor and for the names of the parameters to 
> be automagicaly detected and linked, and then an optional 
> @FXMLArgument to allow us to specify if the actual name deviates from 
> the name of the parameter.
>
> I understand this can be an issue, as parameter names are not 
> retained, but we can fetch either from the debugging symbols, or at 
> compile time.
This would be nice, but I don't think that it's feasible in FX8 time 
frame, unfortunately.

Eva

>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     *From:* Claus Luethje [mailto:Claus.Luethje at osys.ch]
>     *To:* Eva Krejcirova [mailto:eva.krejcirova at oracle.com],
>     openjfx-dev at openjdk.java.net [mailto:openjfx-dev at openjdk.java.net]
>     *Sent:* Wed, 16 Oct 2013 11:26:12 +0000
>     *Subject:* RE: Constructor annotation
>
>     Hi
>     I'd prefer the second option, because the correlation of the order
>     of arguments in the annotation and in the constructors parameters
>     is irritating and error prone.
>     The way it is structured in option two is seen elsewhere also. So,
>     nothing new to learn/absorb.
>     @FXMLArgument is a useful name to describe what's going on.
>     My 2 cents...
>     Regards
>     Claus
>
>     -----Original Message-----
>     From: openjfx-dev-bounces at openjdk.java.net
>     <mailto:openjfx-dev-bounces at openjdk.java.net>
>     [mailto:openjfx-dev-bounces at openjdk.java.net
>     <mailto:openjfx-dev-bounces at openjdk.java.net>] On Behalf Of Eva
>     Krejcirova
>     Sent: Mittwoch, 16. Oktober 2013 11:22
>     To: openjfx-dev at openjdk.java.net <mailto:openjfx-dev at openjdk.java.net>
>     Subject: Constructor annotation
>
>     Hi All,
>
>     when we retired builders, we caused a problem for FXML which
>     doesn't have a way to create classes without default constructors.
>     Back then we decided to use an annotation for this but never
>     actually got to implement it and we need to fix this for FX8. I am
>     in the process of adding this functionality to FXMLLoader but we
>     need to decide how the annotation will look like and I could use
>     some help with this.
>
>     We cannot use already existing ConstructorProperties for this,
>     because it's java.beans package and we don't want to create to
>     dependency on this package in JavaFX, so we need to introduce a
>     new annotation.
>
>     We have two options:
>
>     1. Annotate the whole constructor:
>     e.g.
>     @ConstructorArguments({"a", "b", "list"})
>     public ImmutableClass(int a, int b, Integer... list)
>
>     2. Annotate the arguments:
>     e.g.
>     public ImmutableClass(@FXMLArgument("a") int a,
>     @FXMLArgument("b")int b, @FXMLArgument("list")Integer... list)
>
>
>     Which option do you like more and how should the annotation be named?
>
>     Thanks,
>     Eva
>