Am 12. Oktober 2018 20:43:50 MESZ schrieb Philippe Mouawad
<p.moua...@ubik-ingenierie.com>:
>Hello,
>
>Do we have a consensus on dropping RenderInBrowser ?
I like it, as it gives a nicer rendering than the really old java component,
but have to admit that JavaFX is going to be a lot harder to find in the
default installation. And my pages are probably not the most complex ones, so
there are no problems from missing resources.
Has anyone has tried to get JavaFX as an Extremfall dependency into the build
process?
All in all I am +-0 to kick it out.
Do we have a place for those old 'plugins'? That would be useful for the
mongodb plugin, too.
Regards,
Felix
>
>Thanks
>Regards
>
>On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 8:43 PM UBIK LOAD PACK Support <
>supp...@ubikloadpack.com> wrote:
>
>> For information, as I think message was for mailing list.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
>> From: Milamber <milam...@apache.org>
>> Date: Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 8:19 AM
>> Subject: Re: View Results Tree: Drop browser renderer
>> To: UBIK LOAD PACK Support <supp...@ubikloadpack.com>
>>
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I'm agree to suppress this renderer. It's not very useful, bad
>rendering
>> and too slow.
>>
>> Milamber
>>
>> On 26/09/2018 08:55, UBIK LOAD PACK Support wrote:
>> > Hello,
>> > Isn't it time to drop Browser component and dependency on Java FX
>in next
>> > version ?:
>> >
>> > - It is not available in OpenJDK which should become the most
>used
>> JVM ?
>> > It currently trigger an ugly stacktrace
>> > - It introduces complexity and did not offer that much interest
>as
>> > initially expected
>> >
>> >
>> > Regards
>> >
>> > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 8:10 PM Felix Schumacher <
>> > felix.schumac...@internetallee.de> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Am 07.04.2018 um 09:14 schrieb Philippe Mouawad:
>> >>> Hello,
>> >>> In jdk11, oracle will split javafx and javase.
>> >>> This component uses javafx, I initially thought it would be a
>better
>> >>> renderer but due to security limitations on resources download,
>it
>> ended
>> >> up
>> >>> much less useful and rendering is always partial.
>> >>>
>> >>> So I propose to drop it in next 4.1 .
>> >> Is there any chance to bypass the limitations on resource
>download? I
>> >> found the rendering to be a bit better than the built-in
>"browser", but
>> >> there is certainly a lot of room for improvement.
>> >>
>> >> Felix
>> >>
>> >>> Throughts?
>> >>> Regards
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Regards
>> Ubik Load Pack <http://ubikloadpack.com> Team
>> Follow us on Twitter <http://twitter.com/ubikloadpack>
>>
>>
>> Cordialement
>> L'équipe Ubik Load Pack <http://ubikloadpack.com>
>> Suivez-nous sur Twitter <http://twitter.com/ubikloadpack>
>>
