On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 09:20:27 GMT, Jose Pereda <jper...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>>> However, I'm not sure about the method naming `OnFxThread`, as it might >>> imply that what it does is already done on the FX thread, therefore not >>> needing to be wrapped up by `runOnFxThread`. >> >> I understand what you mean, but the way I see it is that they do already run >> on the FX thread because that's the only reason they exist. I could use >> something like `runMustBeOnFxThread` or `runOnlyFromFxThread` if that's >> better. >> Note that there are already `do___` methods (bad names IMO), and adding >> `run___` might be confusing. > > Probably you won't like `xxImpl` either? > I'm not sure we should start adding `runMustBeOnFxThread` to every method > name out there that should run on the FX thread. In this case, maybe we could > simply add a small javadoc with a comment, and that's it. Neither will > enforce a real check about that. I was also going to suggest `xxImpl` with a short javadoc comment. That is a pattern we use elsewhere. I don't dislike the current name, but I can see Jose's point. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jfx/pull/1352#discussion_r1469540887
