Constructor annotation

Tom Schindl tom.schindl at
Wed Oct 16 04:20:20 PDT 2013

On 16.10.13 11:22, Eva Krejcirova wrote:
> Hi All,
> when we retired builders, we caused a problem for FXML which doesn't
> have a way to create classes without default constructors. Back then we
> decided to use an annotation for this but never actually got to
> implement it and we need to fix this for FX8. I am in the process of
> adding this functionality to FXMLLoader but we need to decide how the
> annotation will look like and I could use some help with this.
> We cannot use already existing ConstructorProperties for this, because
> it's java.beans package and we don't want to create to dependency on
> this package in JavaFX, so we need to introduce a new annotation.
> We have two options:
> 1. Annotate the whole constructor:
> e.g.
>     @ConstructorArguments({"a", "b", "list"})
>     public ImmutableClass(int a, int b, Integer... list)
> 2. Annotate the arguments:
> e.g.
>     public ImmutableClass(@FXMLArgument("a") int a,
> @FXMLArgument("b")int b, @FXMLArgument("list")Integer... list)
> Which option do you like more and how should the annotation be named?

Option 2, but does it really have to hold FXML in the annotation name?
Where would you put the annotation? I think it should NOT be in the
FXML-Package-Namespace because the core should NOT depend on FXML!

I'd go with @Argument or simply @NamedArgument (@Named is already used
by javax.inject)


More information about the openjfx-dev mailing list