FXML [was The Next Great Thing: An Application Framework]
tbee at tbee.org
Mon Feb 13 03:41:57 PST 2012
FXML dynamically maps the XML to the classes, that is how it was possible to (quite easily I must say) add support for MigLayoutFX to FXML.
PS: partial classes, yeah, that kinda had me spinning my head for a while there when I did some C#. All though I would not mind having mixins back.
On 2012-02-13 12:04, Jeff McDonald wrote:
> Daniel Zwolenski<zonski at googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> On a related front, two other areas that in my mind probably would have
> been better off external to JFX are:
>>> FXML: it is built on-top of JFX and so does not need to be part of the
> core. It also implies a certain MVC architecture, and
>>> as we've seen that's not ubiquitous (nor is the architecture style
> chosen particularly in-line with at least a sub-section of the
>>> community which is an example of the sorts of complications an
> Application framework creates)
> Isn't FXML development closely tied to the components/styles/properties of
> a specific release version. If so, then developing the JavaFX core and FXML
> in lock-step is the way to go, otherwise there would be version concerns.
> FXML is still a "what is it?" kinda thing for me. At first I thought it was
> more like a serialization format for JavaFX, but there seems to be more to
> it. It would be nice to call some like FXML.build("my_window.fxml") and
> then get a nice object graph back.
> At least the JavaFX team didn't follow Microsoft's lead and add partial
> classes to Java like MS did in .net.
More information about the openjfx-dev