On Mon, 2 Dec 2024 14:34:08 GMT, Alexander Zvegintsev <azveg...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> Thanks @azvegint. If the `int`-based dimensions are coupled with >> `com.sun.javafx.geom.Rectangle` (and from the code, that's the only place >> they are used at), would you object to making `Dimension` an inner class of >> `Rectangle`? The `float`-based dimensions are used in other 2D shapes, so >> are more general purpose. > >> would you object to making Dimension an inner class of Rectangle? > > I am fine with it. > > Thanks @azvegint. If the `int`-based dimensions are coupled with > > `com.sun.javafx.geom.Rectangle` (and from the code, that's the only place > > they are used at), would you object to making `Dimension` an inner class of > > `Rectangle`? The `float`-based dimensions are used in other 2D shapes, so > > are more general purpose. > > In my opinion, inner classes are justified when the implementations are > coupled, or when one thing only makes sense in the context of another thing. > That doesn't seem to be the case here: `Dimension` is neither used in > `Rectangle`, nor are their implementations coupled. > > What this suggests to me is that either `Dimension` should remain its own > top-level class, or if it is not useful there, be moved to where it _is_ used > instead. The int-based Dimension is only used *by* `Rectangle` even if in another class. I can couple their implementations by adding a `Rectangle#asDimension2D`, and this will be the only instantiation of this class. Note that there's already a constructor `Dimension2Di(Rectangle rect)` that instantiates only via the enclosing class. ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jfx/pull/1653#issuecomment-2702651232
