zonski at gmail.com
Sat Jul 28 16:11:26 PDT 2012
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 :)
More information about the openjfx-dev