JavaBeanObjectPropertyBuilder has incomplete generics support

[Rachel Greenham]

javax.beans.property.adapter.JavaBeanObjectPropertyBuilder seems to be
only partially adapted for generics. The class itself has a generic type
(class JavaBeanObjectPropertyBuilder<T>) and its build() method returns
JavaBeanObjectProperty<T>, but the lack of other support means you can't
fluently create a property without also suppressing "unchecked" warnings.

ie: One might want to do:

private ObjectProperty<Inet4Address> ip4Property;

...

this.ip4Property = JavaBeanObjectPropertyBuilder.create()
    .bean(server)
    .name("ip")
    .build();

but this will produce "unchecked" warnings during compilation. Harmless
but annoying when you want to keep it clean. As it stands, to compile
cleanly you need to split it up:

var builder = new JavaBeanObjectPropertyBuilder<Inet4Address>();
builder.bean(server).name("ip"); // they return untyped builder
this.ip4Property = builder.build();

... or suppress the warning. I hate suppressing warnings. :-)

Proposed fix: (I don't have an OpenJFX build environment yet, this is
the first time I've wanted to change something!)

* Each of the instance methods (except build()) to have declared return
type JavaBeanObjectPropertyBuilder<T>. This allows chaining those fluent
builder methods without losing the generic type.

* create() method to be:
public static <T> JavaBeanObjectPropertyBuilder<T> create() {
    return new JavaBeanObjectPropertyBuilder<T>();
}

I think that's all it needs, and the latter only if you prefer to use
the static builder factory method rather than just using the constructor
directly. Then the first code example above would work cleanly as is. It
also allows for callers to optionally explicitly specify the generic
type to create() with eg: var builder =
JavaBeanObjectPropertyBuilder.<Inet4Address>create().

As you can see all this is just generic type declarations, which should
all be erased to cause no actual change to runtime. The effect on
existing code should be null except that some people would be able to,
if they want, remove the @SuppressWarnings
("unchecked") annotation they've so far had to put above it.

[Nir Lisker]

This is simple enough, but I think it breaks backwards compatibility at the
API level. Warnings about raw types are common in the library, though most
are internal.

If this is somehow allowed I can easily submit a patch.

- Nir

Post by Rachel Greenham
javax.beans.property.adapter.JavaBeanObjectPropertyBuilder seems to be
only partially adapted for generics. The class itself has a generic type
(class JavaBeanObjectPropertyBuilder<T>) and its build() method returns
JavaBeanObjectProperty<T>, but the lack of other support means you can't
fluently create a property without also suppressing "unchecked" warnings.
private ObjectProperty<Inet4Address> ip4Property;
...
this.ip4Property = JavaBeanObjectPropertyBuilder.create()
.bean(server)
.name("ip")
.build();
but this will produce "unchecked" warnings during compilation. Harmless
but annoying when you want to keep it clean. As it stands, to compile
var builder = new JavaBeanObjectPropertyBuilder<Inet4Address>();
builder.bean(server).name("ip"); // they return untyped builder
this.ip4Property = builder.build();
... or suppress the warning. I hate suppressing warnings. :-)
Proposed fix: (I don't have an OpenJFX build environment yet, this is
the first time I've wanted to change something!)
* Each of the instance methods (except build()) to have declared return
type JavaBeanObjectPropertyBuilder<T>. This allows chaining those fluent
builder methods without losing the generic type.
public static <T> JavaBeanObjectPropertyBuilder<T> create() {
return new JavaBeanObjectPropertyBuilder<T>();
}
I think that's all it needs, and the latter only if you prefer to use
the static builder factory method rather than just using the constructor
directly. Then the first code example above would work cleanly as is. It
also allows for callers to optionally explicitly specify the generic
type to create() with eg: var builder =
JavaBeanObjectPropertyBuilder.<Inet4Address>create().
As you can see all this is just generic type declarations, which should
all be erased to cause no actual change to runtime. The effect on
existing code should be null except that some people would be able to,
("unchecked") annotation they've so far had to put above it.
--
Rachel