On Fri, 15 Nov 2024 17:36:25 GMT, Andy Goryachev <ango...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> Incubating a new feature - rich text control, **RichTextArea**, intended to >> bridge the functional gap with Swing and its StyledEditorKit/JEditorPane. >> The main design goal is to provide a control that is complete enough to be >> useful out-of-the box, as well as open to extension by the application >> developers. >> >> This is a complex feature with a large API surface that would be nearly >> impossible to get right the first time, even after an extensive review. We >> are, therefore, introducing this in an incubating module, >> **jfx.incubator.richtext**. This will allow us to evolve the API in future >> releases without the strict compatibility constraints that other JavaFX >> modules have. >> >> Please check out two manual test applications - one for RichTextArea >> (**RichTextAreaDemoApp**) and one for the CodeArea (**CodeAreaDemoApp**). >> Also, a small example provides a standalone rich text editor, see >> **RichEditorDemoApp**. >> >> Because it's an incubating module, please focus on the public APIs rather >> than implementation. There **will be** changes to the implementation >> once/if the module is promoted to the core by popular demand. The goal of >> the incubator is to let the app developers try the new feature out. >> >> **References** >> >> - Proposal: >> https://github.com/andy-goryachev-oracle/Test/blob/main/doc/RichTextArea/RichTextArea.md >> - Discussion points: >> https://github.com/andy-goryachev-oracle/Test/blob/main/doc/RichTextArea/RichTextAreaDiscussion.md >> - API specification (javadoc): >> https://cr.openjdk.org/~angorya/RichTextArea/javadoc >> - RichTextArea RFE: https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8301121 >> - Behavior doc: >> https://github.com/andy-goryachev-oracle/jfx/blob/8301121.RichTextArea/doc-files/behavior/RichTextAreaBehavior.md >> - CSS Reference: >> https://cr.openjdk.org/~angorya/RichTextArea/javadoc/javafx.graphics/javafx/scene/doc-files/cssref.html >> - InputMap (v3): >> https://github.com/andy-goryachev-oracle/Test/blob/main/doc/InputMap/InputMapV3.md >> - Previous Draft PR: https://github.com/openjdk/jfx/pull/1374 > > Andy Goryachev has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a > merge or a rebase. The pull request now contains 63 commits: > > - whitespace > - Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/master' into 8301121.RichTextArea > - save as > - removed function handler > - removed add handler last > - use focus traversal api > - Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/master' into 8301121.RichTextArea > - settings > - comment > - review comments > - ... and 53 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jfx/compare/dd600658...52a7dba1 Here are my first batch of comments on the "InputMap (Incubator)" API. 1. `BehaviorBase`: I'm not yet convinced that this should be part of the public API. If it is, it needs a better name; the current name would be suitable for a class that all behaviors are required to extend (analogous to SkinBase, which skins need to extend, because Control takes a SkinBase). This behavior base class is optional and supports `SkinInputMap.Stateful` only. 2. `SkinInputMap.Stateful` / `SkinInputMap.Stateless`: The `.Stateful` and `.Stateless` split doesn't seem like the right level of abstraction; in particular, it doesn't seem like the `.Stateless` class has been fully fleshed out. One thought: Could the `.Stateful` and `.Stateless` classes be unified? They don't seem all that different, and it could clean up the API. 3. Can `SkinInputMap` be installed only on the `Skin` and not on the `Control` (i.e., not in the `InputMap` itself)? There are `SkinInputMap` methods that are now package scope that would need accessors to make this work, but that should not be a concern (they are already internal interfaces in the current proposal and would remain so). Related to this, should `SkinInputMap` and `BehaviorBase` be moved to a separate package, something with "skin" in the name? Both of these suggestions would help with separation of concerns. These classes are for of developers of custom controls (or custom skins / behaviors for existing controls) not app developers using `InputMap`. SUGGESTION: Given the above, and since most of the concerns raised about the InputMap API are also around the Behavior and Skins, I recommend that you consider making the Skin / Behavior part of the Input Map incubator module non-public in the first version? You could make it public in v2, which would give more time to address these and other issues. ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jfx/pull/1524#issuecomment-2486921662
