[REVIEW] Make controller instantiation customizable

Tom Schindl tom.schindl at bestsolution.at
Tue Dec 13 15:00:55 PST 2011

Am 13.12.11 23:58, schrieb Tom Schindl:
> Am 13.12.11 22:53, schrieb Richard Bair:
>>>> and 2) the developer chooses to forgo tool support and instead uses a 'name' as the controller attribute in the FXML - this name could then be used to lookup the controller in a DI factory/module (this allows for multiple instances of the same controller class to be used, just configured differently, which is not supported in the proposed mechanism).
>>> Seems like it might be an edge case (i.e. falls into the "10% case" vs. the "90%" case").
>> I'm not sure, all it takes is one popular framework that wants to make use of it and it becomes a 90% case :-). I think with the DI frameworks, having a named lookup is probably pretty common?
> Now the correct reply to the correct mail. I'm using DI a lot but rarely
> use named things but I'd say 90% of the time I'm going with the
> interface name as the identifier so the Class-Object is fine at least
> for my DI uses cases.

And for one who tries to write FXML-Tooling a simple key is a nightmare
e.g. to provide you with event callback proposals/validation, ... .


B e s t S o l u t i o n . a t                        EDV Systemhaus GmbH
tom schindl                 geschäftsführer/CEO
eduard-bodem-gasse 5-7/1   A-6020 innsbruck     fax      ++43 512 935833
http://www.BestSolution.at                      phone    ++43 512 935834

More information about the openjfx-dev mailing list