HEADS-UP: Deprecating builders

Richard Bair richard.bair at oracle.com
Tue May 21 09:03:44 PDT 2013

Hi Tom,

This is a good question. The existing 3rd party Builder support will continue to work. Also any class that has a default constructor & properties will continue to work as is out of the box. The thought is that we add @ConstructorArguments annotation to each non-default constructor (particularly for classes that don't have a default constructor) so that FXML can continue to build those types of objects. This in particular would impact our own classes. This however may form a new dependency on java.beans package, and so I'm checking to see how the Java 9 modules are defined to see if this is safe to use, or if javafx.beans needs, essentially, a copy of this annotation.


On May 20, 2013, at 8:18 AM, Tom Schindl <tom.schindl at bestsolution.at> wrote:

> So is there going to be a replacement for builders? How does FXML deal with classes who don't have a no-arg constructor?
> Tom
> On 20.05.13 17:06, Eva Krejcirova wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> Based on the discussion we had in April on this mailing list (Proposal:
>> Deprecate Builders thread) we decided to deprecate the builders. I just
>> pushed a change to graphics repository which adds the deprecated
>> annotation/comment to the builders code and freezes them in the state
>> from 2.2 version. This means that the builders are no longer
>> automatically generated during build so newly added methods won't appear
>> in the builders code and newly added classes won't have builders at all.
>> Also, the incomplete "fix" for RT-24272 (TableView reference to create
>> is ambiguous) has been reverted to original version from 2.2, this means
>> that the create() for generic classes is without arguments again.
>> Regards,
>> Eva

More information about the openjfx-dev mailing list