>> If Main-Class is always present with JavaFX-Application-Class, it may be no >> impact; but this seems to be unclear at this moment. Kevin can chime in >> here and looks like this requires more investigation before we continue the >> code review. > I've read the other mails and I see that there are a number of discussion > points that needs to be resolved before the proposal can move forward.
Yes, we've been discussing offline to nail down the actual wants for this feature. > On the Profile attribute then the concern is where Main-Class is not present, > in that case the JAR file isn't technically an executable JAR file and so > would be considered a library JAR in the current proposal, hence different > defaults so no fast-fail for FX applications. Oh, I see your point there. Kumar brought up the idea of checking what Java version was targeted when it was compiled to kick in a backwards compatibility mode. I think moving forward there won't be any chance of not having a Main-Class, and I don't think javafxpackager has ever created a jar without it so if one did exist it would have been manually assembled. -DrD-
