[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       openjdk-openjfx-dev
Subject:    Jigsaw delayed
From:       zonski () gmail ! com (Daniel Zwolenski)
Date:       2012-07-30 12:53:37
Message-ID: CANbPsPxJXhuKqs0m9ncc12R9gK3rioC4bJDdmKfMf=5SH1g0TQ () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

Great news, thanks guys!

On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 9:31 PM, Kevin Rushforth <kevin.rushforth at oracle.com
> wrote:

> We had hoped to make JavaFX available on the boot classpath as a default
> part of both the JDK and JRE, but ran out of time to work through all of
> the issues (additionally, there was some concern about compatibility). The
> plan is to complete this integration for JDK 8 so that FX will "just be
> there" for all users of the JDK and JRE.
>
> -- Kevin
>
>
>
> Daniel Zwolenski wrote:
>
>> Another thought on this topic. Will this delay to Jigsaw affect the plan
>> to
>> fully and properly integrate JavaFX into the JRE?
>>
>> By full and proper I mean in Java 8 will we still have this odd scenario
>> where JavaFX is 'installed' but not available on the path by default or
>> will it all just finally work out of the box?
>>
>> As an aside, I'm still a little confused about this restriction of not
>> adding JFX to path for the JDK install. Maybe it makes sense for the
>> end-user JRE installation (I'm still dubious about the need for this, but
>> with Igor's packaging tools it is less of a problem) but I just don't see
>> how it makes sense when installing the JDK?
>>
>> If I explicitly download and install JDK7u6 and install this on my
>> machine,
>> how could it possibly cause any problems for JavaFX to be on the path for
>> this JDK? At the very least could we not have a tick box on the final step
>> of the JFX SDK install that says "Make JFX available on the JDK path?".
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 8:08 AM, Igor Nekrestyanov <
>> igor.nekrestyanov at oracle.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 7/25/12 3:03 PM, Richard Bair wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> That's good to hear. I hope the legal side of this will be included in
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> this work so that end developers can do this manual modularisation as
>>>>>> well.
>>>>>> I believe currently the legals prevent us from stripping out most of
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> bits of a jre even for cobundling (or so I've been told).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Awesome scenario would be to have a stripped minimal jre available for
>>>>>> download as a zip and then all the other jars/dlls available for
>>>>>> manual
>>>>>> inclusion. Ie opt in, rather than opt out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> IMHO, this is unlikely as stripped JRE will not pass TCK tests. This is
>>>>> where you need to wait for jigsaw.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> And that is where we are pushing for a change.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Ah, good to know :)
>>>
>>> -igor
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Richard
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]