But... I was just outclassed by my 10 year old on a math issue, so don't believe a word I'm saying today 😁

i think two separate branches/projects/deployables is easy to picture. i'm wondering if there's a way to streamline this especially if there will be a long support need for both versions (on the order of years). on the javafx side, the deconfliction would occur on the class side. you'd add classes to no.tornadofx from two modules, either shaded or using a custom assembly. build a cross-platform JAR but deploy a java9 jar or a java8 jar with the relevant class files added

kotlin...maybe the file gets split into something like Component.kt + Component-jdk9.kt or Component-jdk8.kt if Component has version-specific code

Yeah, I think I understand what you mean. There might even be Maven support via some plugin for this.

shade would probably be easiest. assembly could be used for something more custom

roughly speaking you'd build the cross-version JAR as-is. it would compile with both versions. that would be one maven module. there would be a maven module or profile for jdk8 which would build a JAR that included the cross-version contents. there would also be a maven module or profile for jdk9.

i'll put some maven poms together this week and we can see if it is any good. the goal is to change code in one place and not to mess up the builds

good blog material because everyone is using com.sun packages for skin and behavior

Bear in mind that I've done a lot of refactoring already though.

sure. and if you continue with the two branches, you might start to ease off on trying to keep the two in sync if that ends up being a drag

ex, new features only in java 9

@edvin, I added a comment (question, really) to the PR.

@melston Saw it, will reply later 🙂 We must make sure not to mix graphic and content. Normally we allow the builders to add content, so I think that would make the most sense here as well. So basically, to create the content you'd do

customitem { buildContentNodeHere() }

. This will require a change to the

addChildIfPossible

function as well. If you change your PR to not do anything with the content, only assign to graphic, I can add the last part, or you can check how

addChildIfPossible

is implemented and add that as well.

I'd like to style a TreeItem with

style = "-fx-font-weight: bold;"

but the text is not rendered bold at all.

@edvin, I looked at the

addChildIfPossible

function but I'm not sure how it applies to this extension. Also, I'm not following the

{ buildContentNodeHere() }

reference. Are you suggesting to add an optional function parameter?

@zealous You have to check how the treeview is built structurally and apply the style to a node that matches the selector of the actual item being rendered.

@melston Yes indeed, like all the other builders have 🙂 I will get back to you once I get a free moment.

@edvin if I change the font family to arial I can set the style to italic.

.tree-cell {    -fx-font-family: arial;    -fx-font-style: italic;}

There you're targeting a TreeCell, not a specific item. If you want to do something just for a specific item you'd have to add/remove a class to that specific cell, or add your own graphic using cellFormat for example and assign a node with a style to the

graphic

property.

@edvin as a side note I do import some jfx css files. When I set the font to 'arial' in the

updateItem()

function the in code style settings behave as expected. It looks like the default font has neither are bold nor an italic face.

@zealous Maybe you are applying a more specific selector that overrides it. Try targeting

.tree-cell .label

for example, or check the actual node hierarchy using the layout debugger in TornadoFX or Scenic View.

Due to the bug I found I don't even have a working IDEA installation at the moment, so I can't play with it easily, sorry 🙂 Will get things set up again tomorrow.

@edvin I can live with 'arial' as a workaround. But I'd really like to understand what's going on. My understanding of CSS styling in JavaFX is very limited.

@zealous I really think you should fire up Scenic View, it will give you a much better overview over what's going on and even allow you to change the styles directly while the software is running 🙂

It lets you test theories much quicker.

@edvin ok I will go down that route. Thanks for your time and help.

@zealous Sorry that I can't just give you a solution today 🙂 If you don't figure it out I'll fix it tomorrow 🙂

@edvin there's no reason to be sorry!

Scenic View is a must-have troubleshooting tool