<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 3/9/24 10:30 AM, Marius Hanl wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:trinity-bb062cac-781a-4ed8-a778-50bda28de436-1710009030105@3c-app-webde-bap07">
<div>However, I found this old email thread. Two answers which
reflect what we said:
<div>
<div> </div>
<div><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mail.openjdk.org/pipermail/openjfx-dev/2013-September/010067.html">https://mail.openjdk.org/pipermail/openjfx-dev/2013-September/010067.html</a></div>
<div><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mail.openjdk.org/pipermail/openjfx-dev/2013-September/010094.html">https://mail.openjdk.org/pipermail/openjfx-dev/2013-September/010094.html</a></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Wow, good find! Thank you, Marius. I am pleasantly surprised to
see some of the same people in that old discussion now
participating in this one.</p>
<p>In reading the thread, it seems the decision to keep the JavaFX
API so closed was made primarily by Richard Bair based on his own
experience, and is perhaps best explained in Item 19 of <i>Effective
Java, Third Edition.</i> by Joshua Bloch. Summary: inheritance
violates encapsulation, so designing a class for inheritance "is
not a decision to be undertaken lightly."</p>
<p>I don't have the experience to offer my own opinion, but with all
the talk of opening things up, I thought it might be a good time
to revisit the history. You know, "Those who cannot remember the
past are condemned to repeat it," and all that. 🙂</p>
<p>John</p>
</body>
</html>