FXML Patterns / best practices

Richard Bair richard.bair at oracle.com
Fri Feb 24 14:00:42 PST 2012

My understanding from reading this was that Werner just agreed with Dan -- "Currently I don't see that value in the FXML controller in the general case"

I think the fx:root solution is inferior to the <param> solution because it takes a halting step toward the general solution -- there is a namespace of objects and FXML expressions and references should be able to refer to them.

On Feb 24, 2012, at 1:37 PM, Greg Brown <greg.x.brown at oracle.com> wrote:

> I'm not sure what you are agreeing with here. I think all Werner was saying is that he'd like the controller and the root to be the same object, which I agree we can very easily address with the <fx:root> tag I proposed in the discussion forum. However, I don't think that's the same thing that Daniel is saying.
> On Feb 24, 2012, at 3:08 PM, Richard Bair wrote:
>> I am in complete agreement with Dan. It is easy to do and really opens FXML up.
>> On Feb 24, 2012, at 2:07 AM, Werner Lehmann <lehmann at media-interactive.de> wrote:
>>> Dan,
>>> I second that. Currently I don't see that value in the FXML controller in the general case. I can only imagine that a big scene graph with lots of controls and handlers might justify a separate controller to split code in smaller peaces. But if it only passes things around...
>>> Rgds
>>> Werner
>>> On 24.02.2012 05:58, Daniel Zwolenski wrote:
>>>> Looking at this proposed implementation, we've now got FXML in there for
>>>> building up our Scene Graph, which is fantastic but the need for this extra
>>>> FXMLController is a new cost. It is an extra file (which I have no problem
>>>> with*so long as it adds value*), and also means we still have Java files
>>>> within the designer's domain (i.e. the plumbing of our View).

More information about the openjfx-dev mailing list