Private APIs not usable in Java 9?

Tomas Mikula tomas.mikula at
Wed Apr 8 18:22:16 UTC 2015

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> 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 mailing list