[RT-33954] static block...causes IllegalStateException - re-open?

ngalarneau at ABINITIO.COM ngalarneau at ABINITIO.COM
Tue Apr 8 12:34:22 UTC 2014

Hi Richard,

You raised this IntelliJ issue here: 

It is marked as a feature request.

Are you guys saying that the 2 ways of launching are not equivalent?

What is the difference?

Maybe that issue should be upgraded to a BUG if the old launching method 
is now wrong, not merely old fashioned.


From:   Richard Bair <richard.bair at oracle.com>
To:     Kevin Rushforth <kevin.rushforth at oracle.com>
Cc:     openjfx-dev at openjdk.java.net, Sandipan Razzaque <me at sandipan.net>
Date:   04/07/2014 09:43 PM
Subject:        Re: [RT-33954] static block...causes IllegalStateException 
- re-open?
Sent by:        "openjfx-dev" <openjfx-dev-bounces at openjdk.java.net>

Yes, this is one of the few things that I just hate about IDEA.

On Apr 7, 2014, at 6:00 PM, Kevin Rushforth <kevin.rushforth at oracle.com> 

> I can't speak to other IntelliJ issues, but the root cause of this 
particular one is the same thing that Debbie ran into last week -- 
IntelliJ doesn't launch programs using the standard Java launcher. For 
whatever reason, it uses its own launcher. This might be worth raising 
with JetBrains.
> -- Kevin
> Jonathan Giles wrote:
>> Kevin,
>> Yes, that is the program I used, and yes, I get the 'Toolkit not 
initialized' exception. I am running IntelliJ, so that is the reason. I 
switched over to Eclipse and the code run as expected.
>> I am slightly bothered by the occasional failures that seem to be 
IntelliJ-specific. I have a gut feeling that it doesn't always run all 
tests (or that it runs them slightly differently to get different results 
than when run on the command line). Does anyone know why this is?
>> I'm actually most at home in Eclipse, so perhaps I should switch to 
that as my primary IDE for OpenJFX development.
>> -- Jonathan
>> On 8/04/2014 11:29 a.m., Kevin Rushforth wrote:
>>> Just to make sure we are running the same program, the one I ran to 
verify that RT-33954 is fixed was the simple test program in the comments 
of that bug. Here it is (with the imports omitted for brevity).
>>> public class Example extends Application {
>>>   public static void main(String[] args) {
>>>       //this is called from a static block in 
>>>       PlatformImpl.setDefaultPlatformUserAgentStylesheet();
>>>       Application.launch(args);
>>>   }
>>>   @Override
>>>   public void start(final Stage primaryStage) throws Exception {
>>>   }
>>> }
>>> The above program runs fine for me with no exception.
>>> Jonathan: are you seeing something different? Or perhaps running a 
different example?
>>> NOTE: if you run this from IntelliJ it will not work. I verified that 
with Debbie last week (on a different issue), which may be why you are 
seeing a problem. Running it from command line, from NB, or from Eclipse 
>>> -- Kevin
>>> Jonathan Giles wrote:
>>>> Firstly, I agree - this does seem to still be reproducible despite 
Kevin's comment that it should have been resolved in JavaFX 8.0 due to 
RT-28754 <https://javafx-jira.kenai.com/browse/RT-28754>, so that is 
troubling. I'll leave Kevin to comment on that.
>>>> Secondly, RT-33954 was closed as a duplicate of RT-28754 <
https://javafx-jira.kenai.com/browse/RT-28754>, so it would be better to 
leave RT-33954 closed and move discussion (including what you recently 
posted) into RT-28754 <https://javafx-jira.kenai.com/browse/RT-28754>. The 
discussion can start in there and most probably a new bug will need to be 
opened (as RT-28754 <https://javafx-jira.kenai.com/browse/RT-28754> did 
result in a code change that at one point appears to have fixed the 
problem, so we're possibly dealing with a regression).
>>>> Thirdly, whether this is a suitable bug for someone learning the 
ropes is debatable. I'll leave Kevin to offer his thoughts, but perhaps 
you can propose a patch that resolves this issue for you in your test 
scenarios. Also, a good starting point is to develop a simple test 
application that helps to demonstrate this issue (preferably the test case 
is a single class with no dependencies), and which you can then share in 
the jira issue via copy/paste into a comment.
>>>> Fourthly, to be a contributor in the OpenJDK requires you to follow a 
process to get the paperwork in order. It is wise to get that started as 
soon as possible, as it can sometimes take a while. Here's a link to the 
process: http://openjdk.java.net/contribute/ The main thing is the OCA.
>>>> Finally, welcome! :-)
>>>> -- Jonathan
>>>> On 6/04/2014 1:06 p.m., Sandipan Razzaque wrote:
>>>>> Hi JavaFX devs!
>>>>> I was wondering how people felt about re-opening this bug? I don't 
>>>>> it has been fixed (see my comment).
>>>>> I'm also happy to work on it. But, let me know if you think my time 
>>>>> be better spent elsewhere. I'm keen to take on a small bug to just 
get the
>>>>> hang of the process and community (I'll be stumbling with mercurial 
>>>>> the way too!). I think this bug is an ideal candidate for someone 
>>>>> learning the ropes.
>>>>> https://javafx-jira.kenai.com/browse/RT-33954
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> SR
>>>>> Sandipan Razzaque | www.sandipan.net

NOTICE from Ab Initio: This email (including any attachments) may contain 
information that is subject to confidentiality obligations or is legally 
privileged, and sender does not waive confidentiality or privilege. If 
received in error, please notify the sender, delete this email, and make 
no further use, disclosure, or distribution. 

More information about the openjfx-dev mailing list