Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
8251353: Many javafx scenegraph classes have implicit no-arg constructors #283
8251353: Many javafx scenegraph classes have implicit no-arg constructors #283
Changes from all commits
25c7b37
16d8b9a
38a7551
69b75d6
5bb0790
File filter...
Jump to…
nliskerAug 18, 2020
Collaborator
Please add a missing
)
for the class docs on line 30.kevinrushforthAug 19, 2020
Member
The change to the class header seems unrelated. It would be a good thing to fix, but could be done as part of a follow-on doc cleanup issue.
nliskerAug 25, 2020
Collaborator
Alright, we could add them to this version's doc fixes issue.
nliskerAug 18, 2020
Collaborator
Same missing
)
nliskerAug 18, 2020
Collaborator
Not sure that "default" means anything here. I don't see any configuration.
kevinrushforthAug 19, 2020
Member
Right, but isn't that true of most of the classes, including those in the two related bugs that were fixed?
Worth noting is that the JDK chose different language for abstract classes than concrete ones. For abstract classes, they just use the following language:
And for concrete ones:
This gets around the problem of whether or not
default
adds any useful information since it is the only constructor. Not saying we should adopt this now, but just adding another data point.nliskerAug 25, 2020
Collaborator
I didn't look closely at whether "default" was suitable in the previous cases. I like the JDK's wording, but in cases where there are constructors that allow configuration, the empty constructor could use "default", though specifying what the default values are is more beneficial anyway.
nliskerAug 18, 2020
Collaborator
- Is having a public constructor for this class a good idea? Instances are created by a factory method.
- Both methods in this class need documentation update.
getPseudoClass
has a poor method description and the formatting of the@return
tag is wrong (lowercase and no period).getPseudoClassName
is missing a description.kevinrushforthAug 19, 2020
Member
Yes, this constructor is needed.
PseudoClass
is abstract, so it's constructor is just there for subclasses to call (note that for a constructor of an abstract class,public
andprotected
mean the same thing).As for the other methods in the class, I agree that they should be changed...but in a follow-up issue.
nliskerAug 25, 2020
Collaborator
Maybe we can add the method docs fixes to JDK-8250590?
nliskerAug 18, 2020
Collaborator
Looks like a constructor is fine here if the predefined factories are not suitable, but I'm not familiar with this.
kevinrushforthAug 19, 2020
Member
This one needs to be public since it is subclassed in many other classes.
kevinrushforthAug 26, 2020
Member
You missed updating the wording for this one.
nliskerAug 18, 2020
Collaborator
Not sure that "default" means anything here. I don't see any configuration.