On Wed, 5 Mar 2025 03:05:25 GMT, Nir Lisker <nlis...@openjdk.org> wrote:
> Not really, except for maybe the first edge case where your opinion differs
> from the current behavior.
You mean the one where I said: "this PR should probably not silently allow this
but instead throw an exception" ?
I think that's worth fixing, and I will look into it. An exception would be
good here to inform the user of a problem; it not only would be closer to the
old behavior, but it also prevents a silent modification of the value from
occurring. Perhaps something like `IllegalStateException("non-converging value
detected in value modifying listeners") :)
I'm not sure this will be easy to add, but I'll have a go.
> I still have to review the tests and some of the implementation, but I'm
> willing to approve this PR at any time if you're eager to integrate it and
> have enough reviewers.
I just didn't want the discussion to die out since we seem to be close to
getting this issue resolved. Kevin has expressed he will want to review it as
well, so it is not like I would integrate it before he has time to do that.
-------------
PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jfx/pull/1081#issuecomment-2701158047
