JavaFX and the Missing Interfaces (original) (raw)

Daniel Zwolenski zonski at gmail.com
Mon Nov 5 12:33:01 PST 2012

Maybe somebody can show how this would work in more concrete terms? I don't even see how it would be practical at all.

As in how it would be used by end developers and to what benefit, or as in how to make it workable in the current JFX codebase?

Richard

On Nov 5, 2012, at 12:20 PM, Daniel Zwolenski <zonski at gmail.com> wrote: > +1 > > I think we've had this conversation before. Maybe something to do with interfaces being too brittle where if you add a method anyone implementing it will now be missing a method, whereas with a base class they can add a stub method? > > Other frameworks use interfaces extensively though (eg Spring, java.util.Collections), generally with positive outcomes. > > > > On 06/11/2012, at 5:50 AM, Randahl Fink Isaksen <randahl at rockit.dk> wrote: > >> I have been struggling with a number of problems stemming from the way JavaFX is designed – specifically the lack of interfaces for many of the extension points in the class hierarchy. >> >> It takes some thorough explaining with code examples, so instead of just an unformatted e-mail I posted a more readable explanation of the problem on-line: >> Please read http://blog.randahl.dk/2012/11/javafx-and-missing-interfaces.html >> >> I hope we could have a constructive discussion on this matter on this list before I go ahead and file a Jira, so the Jira issue becomes the best possible basis for solving the design problem. >> >> Thanks >> >> Randahl

More information about the openjfx-dev mailing list