JDK-8198795: Remove IDE specific files from the source code repository

Tom Schindl tom.schindl at bestsolution.at
Fri Apr 20 17:51:01 UTC 2018


On 19.04.18 23:26, Nir Lisker wrote:
> So you're adding read edges in the module-info files via "requires". I
> didn't do this because these files are shared and we can't have 2
> versions of them.

Yes as a temporary workaround. This way I could launch the JUnit-Tests!

> I added the read edges via "--add-reads" in the .classpath files. This
> way Eclipse solves its own problems without external changes. However,
> since Eclipse modular support is still in progress, it's impossible to
> create a valid run configuration with these modules. There are several
> bugs being tracked regarding this approach (I can dig them up if you're
> interested).

Right hence I used the static trickery! If you CC me on the tickets I
can bug the JDT-Team a bit to get them sorted out ;-)

Most of the problems are anyways because of the logging stuff. I anyways
wonder what the proposed setup for JUnit-Tests is in a JPMS world.
Should they really be part of the same application-module?

> Once the java.logging dependency is removed we will be able to simplify
> our solutions and I'll post my .classpaths. 

Right this is the biggest blocker!

>     Well until someone proofs that those setups can be generated I
>     think should maintain them.
> If no one disagrees by the time java.logging is removed I'll file an
> issue to update the Eclipse files.

Yes please do so. Can you share yours? As I said with my "requires
static" trick I can run JUnit-Tests, ... from within my Eclipse Photon
install (install is the wrong term because I'm running inside an
Inner-Eclipse with JDT from master check out!)

>     Dialog: see https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=532850
>     <https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=532850>
> I assume it's the "The blank final field dialog may not have
> been initialized" error. It doesn't stop the building at least, unlike
> the module stuff.

Right. As you can see in the bug-report this is an edge case for compilers.


More information about the openjfx-dev mailing list