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

List:       openjdk-openjfx-dev
Subject:    Update on the JavaFX 8.0 (formerly 3.0) release in JDK8
From:       kevin.rushforth () oracle ! com (Kevin Rushforth)
Date:       2012-08-28 0:11:30
Message-ID: 503C0CB2.6030800 () oracle ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

I filed the following back when we were considering this for 7u6:

http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=7166330

-- Kevin


Tom Schindl wrote:
> Hi Kevin,
>
> Is there any bug I can track to see when a first build with JavaFX on
> the bootclasspath is available (whether it is Java7 or Java8) and get
> access to a build with it.
>
> I've take a look at the Eclipse-Tooling and Equinox stuff and think I
> don't have to adjust anything in Eclipse to support this but without
> giveing it a shot on a real JDK with it on the bootpath I can't be sure.
>
> I don't have a problem building such a JDK, the early I can give it a
> shot the better.
>
> Tom
>
> Am 22.08.12 00:39, schrieb Kevin Rushforth:
>   
>> JavaFX will be on the default classpath, which may or may not be the
>> boot classpath (but for all practical purposes is equivalent).
>>
>>     
>>> Java7 SE who hold the packages part of the JDK/JRE but if
>>> there's no JSR one can't rely that a Java-Install which identifies
>>> oneself as Java8 is having and we can't have those in the Java8 SE profile.
>>>   
>>>       
>> Right, you cannot rely on Java8 always having the JavaFX classes. Java8
>> from Oracle will include JavaFX on Windows, Mac, and Linux (but not
>> Solaris).
>>
>> -- Kevin
>>
>>
>> Tom Schindl wrote:
>>     
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Just to make sure I get this right. JavaFX will be on the bootclasspath
>>> for JDK8 but there won't be a JSR, right?
>>>
>>> Why do I ask for a JSR? In OSGi we have so called profiles e.g. for
>>> Java6 SE, Java7 SE who hold the packages part of the JDK/JRE but if
>>> there's no JSR one can't rely that a Java-Install which identifies
>>> oneself as Java8 is having and we can't have those in the Java8 SE profile.
>>>
>>> We already have ideas how we can solve the none-JSR case but they are
>>> not the ideal solution (the one we need to role in case you put it on
>>> the 7u8/10 bootclasspath).
>>>
>>> Tom
>>>
>>> Am 20.08.12 15:25, schrieb Kevin Rushforth:
>>>   
>>>       
>>>> Here is an update on the JavaFX "Lombard" release.
>>>>
>>>> As you saw from Richard's e-mail last week, the version number for the
>>>> Lombard release has been changed from 3.0 to 8.0 to reflect alignment
>>>> with JDK8 and as a step toward having a single version number that
>>>> identifies both. We will still use "Lombard" in JIRA to identify the 8.0
>>>> release. Any reference to 3.0 from here on out should be treated by
>>>> adding 5 to get the right result. :)
>>>>
>>>> Second, weekly early access builds of JavaFX 8.0 will be available
>>>> shortly as part of the weekly JDK 8 builds. We hope this will happen
>>>> starting later this week.
>>>>
>>>> Third, the openjfx repositories for JavaFX 8.0 are in the process of
>>>> being created and should be available this week.
>>>>
>>>> -- Kevin
>>>>
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>>   
>>>       
>
>
>   

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