Doesn't really have that warm, fuzzy open source feel.. "Discussion about the requirement of a signed OCA to become a contributor"

That's just for now as its still a part of Oracle. Once all the license is handed over, contributions to JavaFX should be without signing OCA.

OK 🙂 Making it easy to build and easy to contribute, even just submit a simple PR is crucial IMO.

Yeah, all contributions are imp.

do you know that's the plan?

it wasn't clear to me what "handing over to the community" actually means

will there be any oracle staff left? will they still do code hosting and decide what is 'official' javafx?

the OCA isn't a big deal - quite a few companies have that. google does too for instance

it's annoying but basically just says "i am in fact authorised to submit this code, i.e. the copyright isn't owned by my employer"

it's over-lawyering, i doubt such a situation happens frequently (i've never heard of it), but then again, i would feel bad arguing against precision in legal matters given how i criticise vague laws

I am not sure. It looks like they are taking a path similar to JavaEE.

Would be cool if they donated it to Apache 🙂

I think/hope maybe the old Pivot crew might be interested.

a standalone project would be fine by me. corporate projects donated to apache have a habit of dying

Oh, I didn't know that.

I am trying to use

lazyPolulate

for tree view and a bit confused. By default

leafCheck: (LazyTreeItem<T>) -> Boolean = { it.hasChildren() }

which means it should return

true

on nodes and

false

on leaves. The implementation on the contrary expects it to be

false

on nodes. I have and object, that can generate its children lazily and also check if there are children. And the same goes for its children. When I write

lazyPopulate( leafCheck = { it.value.hasChildren }) {
                                it.value.children
                            }

I all top level nodes as leafs, but when I flip

it.value.hasChildren

, I get top level nodes as nodes, but second level nodes as leafs. What is wrong?

how to pass parameters between views?

?

Have you considered a Singleton ViewModel shared among the Singleton Views? this is better than having two components at the view layer knowing about each other

Thank you, I resolved pass params

@edvin @Ruckus Was working with @Juan on a transition from a small LoginView to a larger MainView. He wanted the login form to retain the MainView size when the user logged out. What do you think of this code?

sizeToScene

and

centerOnScreen

default to false, so you could just use

this@MainView.replaceWith(LoginView::class, ViewTransition.FadeThrough(1.seconds))

thx. i'll type this up in a blog

(Sorry for all the edits, I'm the king of typos)

yep. it's 1 "seconds" too

Indeed 🙂

@abhinay @mikehearn any idea how the openjfx would be distributed as a dependency once it is decoupled from jdk? Are they planning to put it in maven repository? There are heavy platform dependencies also, no idea how it will be mitigated while distributing..

wasn7t there something in here about binding a property to a sum?

they've talked about putting it in maven. the problem with that is, the JAR format doesn't really work well for native libraries and JFX has a lot of them

libs that distribute native libraries usually need some code to extract them first.