Private APIs not usable in Java 9?
herve.girod at gmail.com
Wed Apr 8 18:46:39 UTC 2015
I think that Oracle people are right. It's more a JDK 9 or jigsaw issue than a JavaFX issue.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Apr 8, 2015, at 20:22, Tomas Mikula <tomas.mikula at gmail.com> wrote:
> My concern is that issues with existing workarounds were given lower
> priority. Now many workarounds will disappear, but I'm worried that
> the priorities will not be reconsidered.
> I think part of the problem is the fact that Java does not have a good
> way of marking an API as experimental. Anything public can never
> change, so JDK developers don't make things public if they are not
> quite happy with the API yet, even though some bits would be useful
> for others. As a consequence, they get no or very little feedback on a
> private API, thus slowing the progress towards the non-experimental
> API even more. Sure, experimental functionality could still be dropped
> at any time, but that is not happening here. The functionality
> remains, it is just going to be hidden.
> Robert makes a good point that designing a stable API for something
> that is currently private and possibly ugly is much more work than
> pulling ad-hoc hacks with the experimental API. I believe Jira issues
> are mostly there, I'm just skeptical that all of the issues currently
> targeted for 9 will actually be resolved in 9.
>> On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 1:23 PM, Robert Krüger <krueger at lesspain.de> wrote:
>> OK, while I wrote this, all the other replies came in. So I see that your
>> recommendation for the cases I mentioned is then to patch OpenJDK and
>> submit Jira issues. Fair enough.
>> Regarding Jira issues, we are already doing that. Regarding code
>> contribution, this is a different thing, because in many cases a hack to
>> expose something that should be there is quick but designing a consistent
>> API that exposes the missing things is often something that requires a
>> different qualification.
More information about the openjfx-dev