8251353: Many javafx scenegraph classes have implicit no-arg constructors #283

bhaweshkc · 2020-08-17T11:16:55Z

Added missing explicit no-arg constructors to classes in package javafx.scene, javafx.css and javafx.stage.

Progress

Change must not contain extraneous whitespace
Commit message must refer to an issue
Change must be properly reviewed

Issue

JDK-8251353: Many javafx scenegraph classes have implicit no-arg constructors

Reviewers

Kevin Rushforth (kcr - Reviewer)
Nir Lisker (nlisker - Reviewer)

Download

$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.java.net/jfx pull/283/head:pull/283
$ git checkout pull/283

…tors

bridgekeeper · 2020-08-17T11:18:43Z

👋 Welcome back bchoudhary! A progress list of the required criteria for merging this PR into master will be added to the body of your pull request.

mlbridge · 2020-08-17T11:25:00Z

Webrevs

nlisker · 2020-08-17T11:57:13Z

/reviewers 2

openjdk · 2020-08-17T11:57:45Z

@nlisker
The number of required reviews for this PR is now set to 2 (with at least 1 of role reviewers).

nlisker

I've completed a partial review. I think that just mechanically adding a constructor with the same doc everywhere is not a good approach. The classes should be inspected to see if one is needed and if its doc is suitable. See my comments on some of the classes I've looked at.

modules/javafx.controls/src/main/java/javafx/scene/control/TableFocusModel.java

modules/javafx.controls/src/main/java/javafx/scene/control/TableSelectionModel.java

modules/javafx.graphics/src/main/java/javafx/css/PseudoClass.java

nlisker · 2020-08-18T17:27:35Z

modules/javafx.graphics/src/main/java/javafx/css/Selector.java

+     */
+    public Selector() {
+    }
+
    private static class UniversalSelector {


Is a public constructor suitable in this class? createSelector(String) is the factory. There are public abstract methods here, on the other hand, so I don't know what the design idea is. The class docs should be updated too to say how to use this class.

This one does not look like it should be public. It seems quite by accident, since the only two classes that subclass Selector are in the same package and are constructed by factory methods (their constructors are package-scope).

This seems like a good candidate for removal (via the deprecate-for-removal, remove route).

modules/javafx.graphics/src/main/java/javafx/css/StyleConverter.java

nlisker · 2020-08-18T17:37:45Z

modules/javafx.graphics/src/main/java/javafx/css/converter/ShapeConverter.java

+     */
+    public ShapeConverter() {
+    }
+


Looks like a singleton class.

Agreed. This is another candidate for removal.

modules/javafx.graphics/src/main/java/javafx/scene/input/ClipboardContent.java

modules/javafx.graphics/src/main/java/javafx/application/Preloader.java

kevinrushforth

@nlisker raises some good issues, so they should be addressed

kevinrushforth · 2020-08-18T18:47:35Z

The classes should be inspected to see if one is needed and if its doc is suitable.

This is an excellent point. One of the main reasons for not relying on implicit, no-arg constructors is that you might get a public constructor where one isn't intended. See JDK-8229472 and JDK-8240688 for what is needed if we determine that there should not be a public constructor.

To that end, I'll go through it more carefully and comment on this specific question.

kevinrushforth

I think that two of the classes have implicit constructors that are there by accident. Once we get agreement, I'll file a follow-on bug for those, and those changes should be reverted.

As for the other comments, I would prefer a follow-up bug for any doc cleanup that isn't part of adding in an explicit constructor. Tempting as it might be to fix it, it seems out of scope.

That leaves the question about the wording. The more I think about it the more I like what the JDK did as opposed to what we did. The question then becomes: if we agree that it's a better pattern, do we adopt it here and then clean it up for the other two batches or just leave it as is for now, and file one cleanup bug for later. I'd like to hear from @aghaisas and @nlisker

modules/javafx.controls/src/main/java/javafx/scene/control/TableFocusModel.java

modules/javafx.graphics/src/main/java/javafx/application/Preloader.java

modules/javafx.graphics/src/main/java/javafx/css/PseudoClass.java

kevinrushforth · 2020-08-18T23:57:58Z

modules/javafx.graphics/src/main/java/javafx/css/Selector.java

+     */
+    public Selector() {
+    }
+
    private static class UniversalSelector {


This one does not look like it should be public. It seems quite by accident, since the only two classes that subclass Selector are in the same package and are constructed by factory methods (their constructors are package-scope).

This seems like a good candidate for removal (via the deprecate-for-removal, remove route).

modules/javafx.graphics/src/main/java/javafx/css/StyleConverter.java

kevinrushforth · 2020-08-19T00:05:41Z

modules/javafx.graphics/src/main/java/javafx/css/converter/ShapeConverter.java

+     */
+    public ShapeConverter() {
+    }
+


Agreed. This is another candidate for removal.

nlisker · 2020-08-25T09:10:14Z

@bhaweshkc You can't deprecate the constructors in this PR since it will need a separate CSR. You should revert the changes on these classes completely and file a new bug (and CSR) dealing with deprecations.

nlisker · 2020-08-25T09:42:16Z

I think that two of the classes have implicit constructors that are there by accident. Once we get agreement, I'll file a follow-on bug for those, and those changes should be reverted.

I finished reviewing the rest of the classes and I had no additional comments about them, so I agree about deprecating for removal those 2 classes' constructors.

As for the other comments, I would prefer a follow-up bug for any doc cleanup that isn't part of adding in an explicit constructor. Tempting as it might be to fix it, it seems out of scope.

That's fine. I left inline comments about those.

That leaves the question about the wording. The more I think about it the more I like what the JDK did as opposed to what we did. The question then becomes: if we agree that it's a better pattern, do we adopt it here and then clean it up for the other two batches or just leave it as is for now, and file one cleanup bug for later. I'd like to hear from @aghaisas and @nlisker

Since it will require an additional cleanup issue anyway, I don't think it matters when we do it, but since we're here I see no reason not to start already.

…comment

kevinrushforth · 2020-08-26T15:22:26Z

Since it will require an additional cleanup issue anyway, I don't think it matters when we do it, but since we're here I see no reason not to start already.

Agreed.

Let's adopt the same language as the JDK. If there are configurable parameters, we can indicate the default by adding an @defaultValue tag (I don't think we need the word default in the description).

kevinrushforth

Looks good except for the one you missed to update, StringStore.

kevinrushforth · 2020-08-26T15:24:53Z

modules/javafx.graphics/src/main/java/javafx/css/StyleConverter.java

+        /**
+         * Creates a default {@code StringStore}.
+         */
+        public StringStore() {


You missed updating the wording for this one.

kevinrushforth

Looks good. I also verified that the only two class without an explicit constructor are the two we identified as needing to be deprecated for removal in a follow-up issue: Selector and SshapeConverter

kevinrushforth · 2020-08-26T17:51:05Z

I filed the following two follow-up issues:

JDK-8252387: Deprecate for removal css Selector and ShapeConverter constructors
JDK-8252389: Fix mistakes in FX API docs

I also added the note about the PseudoClass docs to:

JDK-8250590: Classes and methods in the javafx.css package are missing documentation

openjdk · 2020-08-28T02:02:05Z

@bhaweshkc This change now passes all automated pre-integration checks. When the change also fulfills all project specific requirements, type /integrate in a new comment to proceed. After integration, the commit message will be:

8251353: Many javafx scenegraph classes have implicit no-arg constructors

Reviewed-by: kcr, nlisker

If you would like to add a summary, use the /summary command.
To credit additional contributors, use the /contributor command.
To add additional solved issues, use the /issue command.

Since the source branch of this PR was last updated there have been 7 commits pushed to the master branch:

7a4bd9b: 8252060: gstreamer fails to build with gcc 10
ddf8814: 8251555: Remove unused focusedWindow field in glass Window to avoid leak
c3fb321: 8252107: Media pipeline initialization can crash if audio or video bin state change fails
eb9886a: Merge
85821ca: 8251241: macOS: iconify property doesn't change after minimize when resizable is false
b25ffc7: 8251352: Many javafx.base classes have implicit no-arg constructors

As there are no conflicts, your changes will automatically be rebased on top of these commits when integrating. If you prefer to avoid automatic rebasing, please merge master into your branch, and then specify the current head hash when integrating, like this: /integrate 7a4bd9b25f2b94d3c8a85f79804f81f113350d3f.

As you do not have Committer status in this project, an existing Committer must agree to sponsor your change. Possible candidates are the reviewers of this PR (@kevinrushforth, @nlisker) but any other Committer may sponsor as well.

➡️ To flag this PR as ready for integration with the above commit message, type /integrate in a new comment. (Afterwards, your sponsor types /sponsor in a new comment to perform the integration).

bhaweshkc · 2020-08-28T04:23:31Z

/integrate

openjdk · 2020-08-28T04:23:56Z

@bhaweshkc
Your change (at version 5bb0790) is now ready to be sponsored by a Committer.

nlisker · 2020-08-28T07:24:16Z

/sponsor

openjdk · 2020-08-28T07:25:08Z

@nlisker @bhaweshkc The following commits have been pushed to master since your change was applied:

7a4bd9b: 8252060: gstreamer fails to build with gcc 10
ddf8814: 8251555: Remove unused focusedWindow field in glass Window to avoid leak
c3fb321: 8252107: Media pipeline initialization can crash if audio or video bin state change fails
eb9886a: Merge
85821ca: 8251241: macOS: iconify property doesn't change after minimize when resizable is false
b25ffc7: 8251352: Many javafx.base classes have implicit no-arg constructors

Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts.

Pushed as commit 23ad8f4.

8251353: Many javafx scenegraph classes have implicit no-arg construc…

25c7b37

…tors

openjdk bot added the rfr Ready for review label Aug 17, 2020

kevinrushforth approved these changes Aug 17, 2020

View reviewed changes

kevinrushforth requested a review from aghaisas August 18, 2020 13:20

nlisker suggested changes Aug 18, 2020

View reviewed changes

kevinrushforth requested changes Aug 18, 2020

View reviewed changes

kevinrushforth reviewed Aug 19, 2020

View reviewed changes

Marked few class constructor as deprecated as per review

16d8b9a

Reverted changes for class Selector and ShapeConverter as per review …

38a7551

…comment

kevinrushforth removed the request for review from aghaisas August 25, 2020 13:36

Updated comments as per JDK convention

69b75d6

kevinrushforth reviewed Aug 26, 2020

View reviewed changes

Updated comments as per JDK Convention

5bb0790

bhaweshkc requested review from nlisker and kevinrushforth August 26, 2020 16:22

kevinrushforth approved these changes Aug 26, 2020

View reviewed changes

nlisker approved these changes Aug 28, 2020

View reviewed changes

openjdk bot added the ready Ready to be integrated label Aug 28, 2020

openjdk bot added the sponsor Ready to sponsor label Aug 28, 2020

openjdk bot closed this Aug 28, 2020

openjdk bot added integrated Pull request has been integrated and removed sponsor Ready to sponsor ready Ready to be integrated rfr Ready for review labels Aug 28, 2020

kevinrushforth mentioned this pull request Oct 22, 2021

8271090: Missing API docs in scenegraph classes #650

Closed

3 tasks

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

8251353: Many javafx scenegraph classes have implicit no-arg constructors #283

8251353: Many javafx scenegraph classes have implicit no-arg constructors #283

bhaweshkc commented Aug 17, 2020 •

edited by openjdk bot

Loading

bridgekeeper bot commented Aug 17, 2020

mlbridge bot commented Aug 17, 2020 •

edited

Loading

nlisker commented Aug 17, 2020

openjdk bot commented Aug 17, 2020

nlisker left a comment

nlisker Aug 18, 2020

kevinrushforth Aug 18, 2020

nlisker Aug 18, 2020

kevinrushforth Aug 19, 2020

kevinrushforth left a comment

kevinrushforth commented Aug 18, 2020

kevinrushforth left a comment

kevinrushforth Aug 18, 2020

kevinrushforth Aug 19, 2020

nlisker commented Aug 25, 2020 •

edited

Loading

nlisker commented Aug 25, 2020

kevinrushforth commented Aug 26, 2020

kevinrushforth left a comment

kevinrushforth Aug 26, 2020

kevinrushforth left a comment

kevinrushforth commented Aug 26, 2020

openjdk bot commented Aug 28, 2020 •

edited

Loading

bhaweshkc commented Aug 28, 2020

openjdk bot commented Aug 28, 2020

nlisker commented Aug 28, 2020

openjdk bot commented Aug 28, 2020

8251353: Many javafx scenegraph classes have implicit no-arg constructors #283

8251353: Many javafx scenegraph classes have implicit no-arg constructors #283

Conversation

bhaweshkc commented Aug 17, 2020 • edited by openjdk bot Loading

Progress

Issue

Reviewers

Download

bridgekeeper bot commented Aug 17, 2020

mlbridge bot commented Aug 17, 2020 • edited Loading

Webrevs

nlisker commented Aug 17, 2020

openjdk bot commented Aug 17, 2020

nlisker left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

nlisker Aug 18, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

kevinrushforth Aug 18, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

nlisker Aug 18, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

kevinrushforth Aug 19, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

kevinrushforth left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

kevinrushforth commented Aug 18, 2020

kevinrushforth left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

kevinrushforth Aug 18, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

kevinrushforth Aug 19, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

nlisker commented Aug 25, 2020 • edited Loading

nlisker commented Aug 25, 2020

kevinrushforth commented Aug 26, 2020

kevinrushforth left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

kevinrushforth Aug 26, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

kevinrushforth left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

kevinrushforth commented Aug 26, 2020

openjdk bot commented Aug 28, 2020 • edited Loading

bhaweshkc commented Aug 28, 2020

openjdk bot commented Aug 28, 2020

nlisker commented Aug 28, 2020

openjdk bot commented Aug 28, 2020

bhaweshkc commented Aug 17, 2020 •

edited by openjdk bot

Loading

mlbridge bot commented Aug 17, 2020 •

edited

Loading

nlisker commented Aug 25, 2020 •

edited

Loading

openjdk bot commented Aug 28, 2020 •

edited

Loading