[External] : Re: Improve property system to facilitate correct usage

[Kevin Rushforth]

> some changes are binary incompatible, they are syntactically
> transparent.

Yes, that's the big problem. Binary compatibility is very important. The 
value proposition of making the types a bit more clear doesn't justify 
breaking binary compatibility.

-- Kevin


On 7/27/2021 6:09 PM, Michael Strauß wrote:
> I should point out that the rest of the JavaFX framework did not
> require a single code change as a result of the API changes. So while
> some changes are binary incompatible, they are syntactically
> transparent.
>
> Am Mi., 28. Juli 2021 um 01:39 Uhr schrieb Kevin Rushforth
> <kevin.rushforth at oracle.com>:
>> This will take a while to work through, and we will need to get general
>> consensus on the API changes.
>>
>> I doubt I can support incompatible breaking changes in this area, given
>> how fundamental property and bindings are to JavaFX. I'll take a look,
>> but it is likely that the incompatible API changes part of your proposed
>> change will not be accepted.
>>
>> The changes enforcing correct usage should be a lot less controversial
>> and easier to get through.
>>
>> -- Kevin
>>
>>
>> On 7/27/2021 4:23 PM, Michael Strauß wrote:
>>> I propose a set of changes to the JavaFX property system that I've
>>> outlined in this PR: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/openjdk/jfx/pull/590__;!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!egor-rENORC_wn09Va7FeNBmsgCGsCm3yzccC3yvO_x-wuuyMXrzpE_OplPNe2pJWeue$
>>>
>>> The changes fall into two categories: enforcement of correct usage
>>> (there are several cases listed in the PR), and deprecating untyped
>>> APIs (for removal in a future version) so as to make the intent of the
>>> API more clear to developers.
>>>
>>> Even though there are breaking changes, the impact on application code
>>> should be minimal. I'd welcome any comments on this proposal.