FXML Patterns / best practices (original) (raw)

Greg Brown greg.x.brown at oracle.com
Fri Feb 24 13:37:38 PST 2012

I'm not sure what you are agreeing with here. I think all Werner was saying is that he'd like the controller and the root to be the same object, which I agree we can very easily address with the fx:root tag I proposed in the discussion forum. However, I don't think that's the same thing that Daniel is saying.

On Feb 24, 2012, at 3:08 PM, Richard Bair wrote:

I am in complete agreement with Dan. It is easy to do and really opens FXML up.

On Feb 24, 2012, at 2:07 AM, Werner Lehmann <lehmann at media-interactive.de> wrote:

Dan,

I second that. Currently I don't see that value in the FXML controller in the general case. I can only imagine that a big scene graph with lots of controls and handlers might justify a separate controller to split code in smaller peaces. But if it only passes things around... Rgds Werner On 24.02.2012 05:58, Daniel Zwolenski wrote: Looking at this proposed implementation, we've now got FXML in there for building up our Scene Graph, which is fantastic but the need for this extra FXMLController is a new cost. It is an extra file (which I have no problem withso long as it adds value), and also means we still have Java files within the designer's domain (i.e. the plumbing of our View).

More information about the openjfx-dev mailing list