[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       openjdk-openjfx-dev
Subject:    Re: The rise and fall of Builders
From:       Richard Bair <richard.bair () oracle ! com>
Date:       2013-08-30 6:08:44
Message-ID: 4194D1CE-898B-4AF7-A1F3-C8A10D147F87 () oracle ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

Using your own builders is fine, I mean you best not use the deprecated ones as they \
will be disappearing.

On Aug 29, 2013, at 10:56 PM, Tom Eugelink <tbee@tbee.org> wrote:

> 
> I know, the question was based on the "best to cycle off builders" remark, then \
> what is advised to use as an alternative? 
> Tom
> 
> 
> On 2013-08-30 06:56, Richard Bair wrote:
> > You can still use your own Builders and plug them into FXML. Its just that the \
> > built in set won't be there. But the Builder base class and all the FXML support \
> > is still there. All mentioned in that long thread :-D 
> > Richard
> > 
> > On Aug 29, 2013, at 9:50 PM, Tom Eugelink <tbee@tbee.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > This week I ran into the problem that I needed to provide a date format \
> > > (attribute in FXML) to one of my controls. So I needed a way to convert a \
> > > string to DateFormat, or even a comma separated list to a list of DateFormats. \
> > > This I solved with a builder for that control. How would one solved that \
> > > without builders? (What is the alternative to builders?) 
> > > Tom
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On 2013-08-29 22:42, Richard Bair wrote:
> > > > Deprecated in 8 and removed from the JavaDoc, gone in 9 (will be available as \
> > > > a separately downloadable Jar so you can keep using them, but they won't be \
> > > > updated). We're removing them from samples. 
> > > > Best to cycle off the builders.
> > > > 
> > > > Richard
> > > > 
> > > > On Aug 29, 2013, at 12:42 PM, Felix Bembrick <felix.bembrick@gmail.com> \
> > > > wrote: 
> > > > > Thanks Jonathan,
> > > > > 
> > > > > So what is Oracle's current position on this?  Are Builders in or out?  If
> > > > > out, when will they be removed and how?
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > On 30 August 2013 05:31, Jonathan Giles <jonathan.giles@oracle.com> wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > You can catch up on the back story here:
> > > > > > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/openjfx-dev/2013-March/006725.html
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > -- Jonathan
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > On 30/08/2013 7:06 a.m., Felix Bembrick wrote:
> > > > > > > I was not privy to the original discussion but I am lead to believe \
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > Builders are no longer considered fashionable and that we are advised not
> > > > > > to use them.
> > > > > > > While I realise that every type of Node basically needed its own
> > > > > > Builder, could someone please outline why this situation has arisen?  Is \
> > > > > > it something to do with "fluent APIs" themselves or some other reason?
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Felix
> > > 
> 
> 


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]