On Mon, 28 Oct 2024 22:31:18 GMT, John Hendrikx <jhendr...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>>> I like that, it clearly explains what to do. thank you! >> >> I do, too. When I read the discussion up to the point Michael proposed this, >> my thought was that the only way to solve it is with a parameter like this. >> >>> Somewhat tangential question: should we start placing JEPs in >>> /doc-files/jeps ? >> >> There was a thread a while ago about this. Let's restart that thread rather >> than discussing it in any particular PR. > > If this flag is suddenly so important, then why doesn't `requestFocus` have > it? > > I feel that we've found an internal inconsistency, and that the solution is > to then drop this on the user to ensure correctness (the wording "callers > must specify" definitely alludes to this). It's like asking users to pass > along some important flag, and if they get it wrong the system breaks. > > I think the request focus call should take the most sensible value for > focusVisible on programmatic changes, and that FX should not be using this > API itself. Now we're just exposing focusVisible in a round-about way (as a > boolean flag of some other call) to make it user controllable -- then why not > just make it writable? If I don't like the calculated default (or perhaps > always `true`), then I can call `Node#setFocusVisible(false)` after the > request focus call. Good question, @hjohn . Why indeed, @mstr2 ? ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jfx/pull/1604#discussion_r1819858689
