Remove JavaFX JPMS enforcement

Michael Paus mp at
Sat Apr 18 12:40:34 UTC 2020

I would just like to add that many of the problems you have cited would 
just vanish if the JPMS
enforcement would be removed from the JDK. There would be no "JavaFX 
requiring absurd
runtime module VM arguments" anymore and the IDE integration would just 
be straight forward.
JavaFX would become just one more dependency whithout the need for any 
special treatment.

I did, however, not say that JavaFX should be de-modularized. For an 
expert user who wants
to use the JPMS nothing would change at all.


Am 18.04.20 um 12:58 schrieb Ty Young:
> On 4/18/20 5:01 AM, Michael Paus wrote:
>> Getting started with JavaFX is made overly complicated by the fact 
>> that the use of the
>> module system is enforced by some code in the JDK. Especially for 
>> beginners, who just
>> want to get some small program running, this is almost always a big 
>> source of frustration.
>> It is not very good marketing for JavaFX to make these initial steps 
>> such a pain. If you
>> need some evidence for this statement, then just follow JavaFX on 
>> Stackoverflow or similar
>> sites (and also this mailing list). Almost every day you can read 
>> frustrated posts from
>> helpless people who would just like to get some JavaFX project 
>> running but are failing
>> because they get lost in the module system jungle.
> Speaking as a long time JavaFX user(literally since Java 8), I have 
> mostly disagree that the JPMS is hurting JavaFX.
> That said, I don't think the frustration is misplaced. What you say is 
> true(Netbeans mailing list is fill of JavaFX issues) and the end user 
> is *NOT* to be blamed here.
> Rather, I think what's to blame is poor documentation, JavaFX 
> requiring absurd runtime module VM arguments, and  poor/buggy IDE 
> support.
> Starting with documentation, JavaFX uses reflection for things like 
> TableView(everyone's favorite) and CSS style sheets. While this may be 
> obvious for people who are more experienced, those who are not may be 
> very confused when they get an onslaught of error messages regarding 
> reflection. Better documentation on what requires reflection, why, and 
> how to enable it would be useful.
> Likewise, the notice about having to include to the 
> runtime module arguments here:
> Apply to Maven as well, but it's under Ant for some reason. I don't 
> know what was changed in JavaFX 14 that now suddenly requires a 
> runtime VM argument, but it's a PITA and BS. End users are going to 
> struggle with this, and it prevents JavaFX runtime from being purely 
> managed by Maven. No other JavaFX version requires this, so it's mind 
> boggling that all of a sudden JavaFX needs this.
> Poor/buggy IDE support is really the big one here. I don't know about 
> other IDEs but Netbeans DOES NOT provide a project template for 
> creating a JavaFX application with setup dependencies. Netbeans, when 
> setup with a Maven project, allows you to select an entire 
> project(pom) rather than the individual dependencies(jar) which 
> doesn't work. What you search for also matters: if you search for 
> "JavaFX" you will get the wrong search results. You need to search for 
> "openjfx" which can be confusing.
> Anyway, yeah, it's a PITA. There is also an issue with Ant based 
> projects and Netbeans because JavaFX puts its in a folder that 
> is supposed to only include the runtime library that has existed for 
> years(literally a 1 line fix too). No one really uses Ant anymore so 
> it's probably not a big deal now but yeah, getting JavaFX working 
> hasn't been "include and done" when it could potentially be that way.

More information about the openjfx-dev mailing list