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

List:       openjdk-openjfx-dev
Subject:    Re: The "javafx might not be present" problem
From:       Michael Paus <mp () jugs ! org>
Date:       2018-02-13 22:27:18
Message-ID: d344b99d-124a-55fb-b28e-592669258fac () jugs ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

That is good news and will probably make a lot of things easier.
Michael

Am 13.02.18 um 22:50 schrieb Kevin Rushforth:
>
>> There is a big difference because you just don't have to bundle all 
>> these
>> other things with the JDK because you can add them later if you need 
>> them.
>> This is different from the OpenJDK-OpenJFX combo which has to be built
>> and distributed together for technical reasons.
>
> We are working to eliminate this dependency, to make it easier for 
> OpenJFX to be used with OpenJDK builds that don't already contain 
> javafx.* modules.
>
> -- Kevin
>
>
>
> Michael Paus wrote:
>> Am 09.02.18 um 15:22 schrieb Mario Torre:
>>> On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 3:07 PM, Michael Paus <mp@jugs.org> wrote:
>>>> Am 09.02.18 um 14:49 schrieb Mario Torre:
>>>>> On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 2:29 PM, Mark Raynsford <org.openjdk@io7m.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I suppose what I'm really saying is: When (if ever) can I expect 
>>>>>> JavaFX
>>>>>> to be present unconditionally with OpenJDK installs? I probably 
>>>>>> can't
>>>>>> migrate to JavaFX until that day...
>>>>> JavaFX is not part of the Java specifications for the JDK or its
>>>>> runtime, so the presence of the library in any distribution of 
>>>>> OpenJDK
>>>>> pretty much depends on the vendor distributing you the binaries.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are some Linux distribution that started packaging a subset of
>>>>> OpenJFX (in most cases few notable missing bits are the audio codecs
>>>>> and the webview). I don't know if the same libraries will be bundled
>>>>> with the GPL binary from Oracle, that's probably a question somebody
>>>>> from Oracle may answer.
>>>>>
>>>>> The only way I can see JavaFX becoming included by default everywhere
>>>>> is if it becomes part of the spec.
>>>> In practice this is really a pain point and very bad advertising 
>>>> for JavaFX.
>>>> Who defines that everything Open... can only contain what is 
>>>> included in
>>>> "the spec"?
>>>> Who keeps us from creating a product OpenJDKFX which we define to 
>>>> contain
>>>> OpenJDK + OpenJFX. I'd like to see a complete and open version of 
>>>> Java but
>>>> at the moment everybody seems to restrict themselves to only OpenJDK.
>>>> Even Oracle at their EA download page deliver the open version of 
>>>> the JDK
>>>> without JavaFX which I simply don't understand and which makes this 
>>>> version
>>>> of the JDK completely useless to me.
>>> You already have a complete, compliant and open version of Java. The
>>> Java spec and the TCK define what is and what is not Java, and it
>>> doesn't cover JavaFX.
>>>
>>> JavaFX can be included by downstream vendors, but that's entirely up
>>> to them, in that regard is not different than bundling Tomcat or maven
>>> with your JDK.
>> There is a big difference because you just don't have to bundle all 
>> these
>> other things with the JDK because you can add them later if you need 
>> them.
>> This is different from the OpenJDK-OpenJFX combo which has to be built
>> and distributed together for technical reasons.
>>
>>

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