15 messages in net.java.dev.openjfx-compiler.devRe: accessibility proposal
FromSent OnAttachments
Per BothnerJun 16, 2008 4:21 pm 
Robert FieldJun 16, 2008 9:48 pm 
Joshua SmithJun 16, 2008 10:24 pm 
Rémi ForaxJun 17, 2008 12:57 am 
Ethan NicholasJun 18, 2008 6:40 am 
Brian GoetzJun 18, 2008 7:37 am 
Shannon HickeyJun 18, 2008 7:44 am 
Brian GoetzJun 18, 2008 8:05 am 
Robert FieldJun 18, 2008 9:32 am 
Per BothnerJun 18, 2008 12:16 pm 
Dean IversonJun 18, 2008 12:51 pm 
Brian GoetzJun 18, 2008 12:56 pm 
Dean IversonJun 18, 2008 1:22 pm 
Brian GoetzJun 18, 2008 1:26 pm 
Christopher OliverJun 18, 2008 2:09 pm 
Actions with this message:
Paste this link in email or IM:
Paste this link in email or IM:
Atom feed for this thread
Paste this URL into your reader:
Subject:Re: accessibility proposalActions...
From:Christopher Oliver (Chri@Sun.COM)
Date:Jun 18, 2008 2:09:47 pm
List:net.java.dev.openjfx-compiler.dev

On Jun 18, 2008, at 12:57 PM, Brian Goetz wrote:

I think that's Java-think talking; we're used to the way you have to do it in Java. Binding makes 90% of the MVC code just go away, which means that your model and view classes are much simpler, and putting them together is often more natural.

I don't think that's right.

Having all your classes in the same file is a convenience for trivial apps.

But supporting separation of concerns is required (and of hiding implementation details)

Proper support for separating code into multiple source files and multiple directories (packages) is required, for larger scale applications and for code that's developed independently or collaboratively by multiple developers. In my opinion the java package scope is inconvenient as it forces grouping by access control (usually implementation detail) rather than allowing logical grouping. In addition, there's a desire to have platform specific profiles for the javafx script runtime libs, which involves re-grouping subsets and supersets of classes and packages by "profile", which we should take into consideration.

Chris