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

List:       openjdk-openjfx-dev
Subject:    =?UTF-8?B?UmVbMl06IFdoeSBkb24ndCBHcmlkUGFuZSwgSEJveCwgQm9yZGVyUGFuZSwg?= =?UTF-8?B?VkJveCwgU3RhY2tQY
From:       Alex Sviridov <ooo_saturn7 () mail ! ru>
Date:       2019-04-29 10:49:38
Message-ID: 1556534978.151470995 () f420 ! i ! mail ! ru
[Download RAW message or body]

Hi Kevin,

Let me explain the reasons of this question. We implement JavaFX (simplified) in \
TypeScript  ( https://github.com/PavelKastornyy/script4j ) for web. For every JavaFX \
Node we have html element. For example, for Pane we have <div></div>. 

So the question, where should we put all the logic about html elements of the Node? 
We thought that Skin is the best candidate, however, we found that not all nodes have \
Skins, for example GridPane doesn't. What would you advise?


> Пятница, 26 апреля 2019, 17:46 +03:00 от Kevin Rushforth \
> <kevin.rushforth@oracle.com>: 
> Those are layout containers, not UI controls. Given their purpose -- to 
> be containers for laying out children -- it would seem odd for them to 
> have skins. The ability to CSS-style a Pane should be sufficient to do 
> what you want.
> 
> -- Kevin
> 
> 
> On 4/26/2019 6:13 AM, Alex Sviridov wrote:
> > I am studying JavaFX API and can't understand why GridPane, HBox, BorderPane, \
> > VBox, StackPane don't have Skins. According to Skin API doc:
> > > Base class for defining the visual representation of user interface controls by \
> > > defining a scene graph of nodes to represent the skin. A user interface control \
> > > is abstracted behind the Skinnable interface.
> > Why do JavaFX developers use skins only for controls, but not for the above \
> > panes? I am asking, because these panes also have visual representation. For \
> > example, we can set color, they have children which can be placed somehow \
> > differently etc. Could anyone explain?
> 


-- 
Alex Sviridov


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