Cleaning up Control codebase - How to deal with StyleableProperty cast

[David Grieve]

I don't have a strong opinion, other than a preference for having it 
done one way in all cases. So it seems 
(StyleableProperty<Boolean>)(WritableValue<Boolean>) would be the way to go.

On 5/1/14, 12:25 PM, Tom Schindl wrote:
> Hi Jonathan & David,
>
> do you have any opinion on this? I would spend some time tomorrow to
> bring down the warning count.
>
> Maybe we should use the Styleable*Property cast when we control both the
> API & implementation and reside to the more save
> (StyleableProperty<Boolean>)(WritableValue<Boolean>) e.g. if we don't
> e.g. because code is owned by the graphics module?
>
> One could naturally look at this from another angle and say the Syleable
> interface should have been shown in the API but I guess this not going
> to change so we need to live with casts and the implementation detail.
>
> Tom
>
> On 30.04.14 15:39, Tom Schindl wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 29.04.14 14:35, David Grieve wrote:
>>> I've found that this works:
>>>
>>>      final StyleableBooleanProperty prop =
>>> (StyleableBooleanProperty)focusTraversableProperty();
>>>
>> Right i can confirm that.
>>
>> The problem is that we are then relying even more on the fact the
>> upstream code does not change. If someone because of what ever reason
>> decides to replace the StyleableBooleanProperty through a custom
>> implementation StyleableProperty<Boolean> we get broken.
>>
>> In case of focusTraversableProperty() we are even crossing module
>> boundaries in this case which worries me a bit.
>>
>> Tom
>>