It's Builder.buildPart and not Container.buildPart because TornadoFX uses EventTarget.label and hot HBox.label (and VBox.label, StackPane.label, etc)

@edvin @ron Wow. So many examples! Thanks!! Trying in now. By the way - in which tornadofx version the toProperty was added? I added compile ‘no.tornadotornadofx1.7.+’ and it doesn’t seem to know about toProperty ;-(

It's the snapshot either use jitpack or clone the repo and mvn install it

@ron Okay 😉 I see tornadofx is evolving fast) cool!

This is slow we had times that I had a cron job running every hour

@User uploaded a file: keepupwithEdvin.sh

Haha, I love that script Ron 🙂

@carlw I think the difference is that in your example you have complete control of the API and can avoid it. Also, we don't do a blind cast like that in TornadoFX. You could do

(this as? Container)?.parts?.add( part )

to avoid the type cast issue.

@carlw I'm glad you took the time to write the post, nice to get that info out there!

@edvin the point i'm trying to get across is that the builders exist in EventTarget and that the control builders (label{}, button{}) get a parent that they can interrogate and add themselves to

its funny you and carlw are more about the internals. I am more about the usage in my work and posts

this

toProperty

will clean up my current models

@User uploaded a file: Untitled

@ron I have another simplification for pojos vs viewmodel in mind, will test my theory after jiu jitsu.

I do wonder how it will handle the lists and

localDateTime

I'm thinking that it should be possible to do something like

val name = bind(Group::name)

for example.

This will work in the ItemViewModel, because the item instance is always known.

nah go big I want

val model =createModelFromPojo(Group::class.java).andDoItQuick()

😉

@ron That would use reflection, and I try to avoid that.

It's doable, but you'd loose the opportunity to control if you want a SimpleXXXProperty or SimpleObjectProperty etc.

You'd also need to access the properties using model.get(Group::name) or something. Ugly.

Have to run! Back in a few hours

will

bind(Group::name)

work with immutables?

@ron Yes.

I think I can also improve the syntax for objects with existing properties.

Will play with it tonight.

These optimizations will be in

ItemViewModel

, not

ViewModel

though, since they need an instance.

I hardly ever use the ViewModel, I find ItemViewModel so much better

Yes, it's the right fit for most use cases :)

Can't wait to work on binding optimizations tonight!