FXMLLoader <?import?> checking code conventions too much?

[Stephen F Northover]

Guillaume, if you feel strongly about this, please file a JIRA. Thanks!

Steve

On 2014-06-05, 4:29 PM, Martin Sladecek wrote:
> Maybe some special tags can solve the problem, like
> <fx:property name="TEXT">abc</fx:property>
> <fx:new class="hello.text" text="abc"/>
> <fx:static class="text" property="TEXT">abc</fx:static>
>
> They could be used in cases where the class name violates the 
> restrictions we have for property/object tags. FXML version and SB 
> will have to be update though, which means such fxml will not be 
> compatible with older versions. This is definitely something we should 
> do only on major release (9).
>
> -Martin
>
> On 5.6.2014 22:21, Stephen F Northover wrote:
>> Seems like we can't/shouldn't fix this. We can at least make sure it 
>> is documented.
>>
>> Steve
>>
>> On 2014-06-05, 4:19 PM, Martin Sladecek wrote:
>>> Currently, we use case to distinguish between newly created objects 
>>> (upper-case class name) and properties (lower-case). Otherwise, it 
>>> would not be clear when there's e.g. a text property and text class 
>>> if we should set a property called text or create new text object 
>>> and try to assign it to the default property. The same problem with 
>>> static setters.
>>> Is "hello.text.text" a fully qualified name of text class in or 
>>> "text" static setter of a hello.text class?
>>>
>>> I guess we could define some order in which we would try out this 
>>> options in the current context, but SB will have a problem since 
>>> they use static mode which can be used without having the classes on 
>>> the cp.
>>>
>>> -Martin
>>>
>>> On 5.6.2014 20:57, Stephen F Northover wrote:
>>>> I see no reason why we should enforce this.  Martin, any idea?
>>>>
>>>> Steve
>>>>
>>>> On 2014-06-05, 12:05 PM, Guillaume Anctil wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> on a project I work on, the code convention does not follow the Java
>>>>> standard and class names start with a lower case 'c': 
>>>>> "cSomeClass.java"
>>>>>
>>>>> In the <?import ?> parsing of the FXMLLoader, the loadType 
>>>>> function looks
>>>>> like this:
>>>>>
>>>>> int i = name.indexOf('.');
>>>>> int n = name.length();
>>>>> while (i != -1
>>>>>      && i < n
>>>>>      && Character.isLowerCase(name.charAt(i + 1))) {
>>>>>      i = name.indexOf('.', i + 1);
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> if (i == -1 || i == n) {
>>>>>      throw new ClassNotFoundException();
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> String packageName = name.substring(0, i);
>>>>> String className = name.substring(i + 1);
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This causes a ClassNotFoundException on our custom controls 
>>>>> because of the
>>>>> lowercase check.
>>>>>
>>>>> I was wondering if a simple:
>>>>>
>>>>> int i = name.lastIndexOf('.');
>>>>>
>>>>> Instead of the lowercase check could be viable. The 
>>>>> ClassNotFoundException
>>>>> would still be thrown later on, when trying to actually load the 
>>>>> class.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is there a reason that I don't see why the convention _must_ be 
>>>>> upheld in
>>>>> this case?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>
>>>
>>
>