Move to JIRA [was: Re: [8u] API Request: RT-25613, ObservableValue should have a hasListener(listener) method]

[Seeon Birger]

Steve,

I wonder if we could take advantage of available plug-ins for JIRA.

I particular I found this one which enables threaded comments for JIRA:
https://marketplace.atlassian.com/plugins/com.atlassian.jira.threadedcomments.threaded-comments

Also interesting is the following which make it easy to put JIRA updates on mailing lists in a flexible and customizable way:
https://marketplace.atlassian.com/plugins/com.metainf.jira.plugin.emailissue

What do you think?

Seeon



-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen F Northover 
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 12:45 AM
To: John Hendrikx; openjfx-dev at openjdk.java.net
Subject: Re: Move to JIRA [was: Re: [8u] API Request: RT-25613, ObservableValue should have a hasListener(listener) method]

Hi John,

The goal is not to end the discussion!

It's a trade off.  Mailing lists are good because they provide a threaded discussion.  JIRA is bad because it is not threaded.  JIRA has the advantage that it captures data in a single place and provides a good history of why a decision was made.

There's no right answer here but the policy that the FX committers is using is to try to capture as much as possible in JIRA.

Steve

On 2014-01-22 5:29 PM, John Hendrikx wrote:
> Unfortunately, "discussing" things in JIRA works very poorly and is a 
> good way to end a productive discussion IMHO.  Mailinglists are much 
> better suited to the task, as thousands of interesting mailinglists 
> accross many developer communities will atest to.
>
> Keeping a record is good, aren't these mailinglists archived?
>
> --John
>
> On 22/01/2014 18:47, Daniel Blaukopf wrote:
>> Hi Martin, Randahl, Tom, Richard, Tomas and Ali,
>>
>> This is a productive discussion, but once we get to this level of 
>> detail JIRA is the place to have it, so that we don't lose our record 
>> of it. Would you continue the discussion on
>> https://javafx-jira.kenai.com/browse/RT-25613 ?
>>
>> See
>> https://wiki.openjdk.java.net/display/OpenJFX/Code+Reviews#CodeReview
>> s-TechnicalDiscussionsandCodeReviews
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Daniel
>>
>> On Jan 22, 2014, at 7:23 PM, Stephen F 
>> Northover<steve.x.northover at oracle.com>  wrote:
>>
>>> If we add this API, I like addListener(InvalidationListener,
>>> boolean) better than ensureListener().
>>>
>>> Steve
>>>
>>> On 2014-01-22 8:20 AM, Ali Ebrahimi wrote:
>>>> I suggest adding another overload for addListener method taking 
>>>> boolean parameter  "duplicateAllowed" or "duplicateNotAllowed".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 3:00 PM, Richard 
>>>> Bair<richard.bair at oracle.com>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> The default implementation (for Observable) would look like this:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> public default void ensureListener(InvalidationListener listener) {
>>>>>>>     removeListener(listener);
>>>>>>>     addListener(listener);
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> subclasses might do something more effective. The same would 
>>>>>>> apply to
>>>>>>> ObservableValue and ChangeListener and Observable[List|Set|Map] and
>>>>>>> [List|Set|Map]ChangeListener.
>>>>>> Well this would destroy the order! I expect listeners to be 
>>>>>> called in
>>>>>> the correct order not?
>>>>> That's a good point :-(
>>>>>
>>>>>> Why doing a remove and not simply check if the
>>>>>> listener has already been added?
>>>>> Because there is no way to check, except in the implementation. 
>>>>> From the
>>>>> Observable interface level, there is no way to a) force all 
>>>>> implementations
>>>>> of the interface to implement the method correctly (without 
>>>>> breaking source
>>>>> compatibility anyway), or b) to provide a reasonable default 
>>>>> implementation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe this is one of those things we can't fix on the Observable 
>>>>> interface
>>>>> and just have to provide implementations of on our concrete 
>>>>> properties.
>>>>>
>>>>> Richard
>