Note that this feature request is only somewhat related to the issue at hand. Yes we would like IntelliJ (and Eclipse) to recognize and launch JavaFX application subclasses with no main method, but the issue here is that IntelliJ (unlike the other IDEs) inserts its own launcher class in front of the program you are running, which causes the Java launcher to not recognize that it is being asked to launch a JavaFX program. So we could either file a new JIRA or maybe add the additional information to the existing one that Richard filed.

Either way, we need to document this on our Wiki to warn IntelliJ users of this.

-- Kevin

Stephen F Northover wrote:
The two ways of launching are equivalent however, at one point, we did not run main() even when main() was available and this caused problems on the desktop. Lots of code was written that expected main() to run and this code was broken. We will be supporting both ways of launching an FX application for the foreseeable future, however, the IDE's still need to understand that FX applications that only contain start() are launchable.


On 2014-04-08 8:34 AM, wrote:
Hi Richard,

You raised this IntelliJ issue here:

It is marked as a feature request.

Are you guys saying that the 2 ways of launching are not equivalent?

What is the difference?

Maybe that issue should be upgraded to a BUG if the old launching method
is now wrong, not merely old fashioned.


From:   Richard Bair <>
To:     Kevin Rushforth <>
Cc:, Sandipan Razzaque <>
Date:   04/07/2014 09:43 PM
Subject: Re: [RT-33954] static block...causes IllegalStateException
- re-open?
Sent by:        "openjfx-dev" <>

Yes, this is one of the few things that I just hate about IDEA.

On Apr 7, 2014, at 6:00 PM, Kevin Rushforth <>

I can't speak to other IntelliJ issues, but the root cause of this
particular one is the same thing that Debbie ran into last week --
IntelliJ doesn't launch programs using the standard Java launcher. For
whatever reason, it uses its own launcher. This might be worth raising
with JetBrains.
-- Kevin

Jonathan Giles wrote:

Yes, that is the program I used, and yes, I get the 'Toolkit not
initialized' exception. I am running IntelliJ, so that is the reason. I
switched over to Eclipse and the code run as expected.
I am slightly bothered by the occasional failures that seem to be
IntelliJ-specific. I have a gut feeling that it doesn't always run all
tests (or that it runs them slightly differently to get different results
than when run on the command line). Does anyone know why this is?
I'm actually most at home in Eclipse, so perhaps I should switch to
that as my primary IDE for OpenJFX development.
-- Jonathan

On 8/04/2014 11:29 a.m., Kevin Rushforth wrote:
Just to make sure we are running the same program, the one I ran to
verify that RT-33954 is fixed was the simple test program in the comments
of that bug. Here it is (with the imports omitted for brevity).
public class Example extends Application {
   public static void main(String[] args) {
       //this is called from a static block in


   public void start(final Stage primaryStage) throws Exception {

The above program runs fine for me with no exception.

Jonathan: are you seeing something different? Or perhaps running a
different example?
NOTE: if you run this from IntelliJ it will not work. I verified that
with Debbie last week (on a different issue), which may be why you are
seeing a problem. Running it from command line, from NB, or from Eclipse
-- Kevin

Jonathan Giles wrote:
Firstly, I agree - this does seem to still be reproducible despite
Kevin's comment that it should have been resolved in JavaFX 8.0 due to
RT-28754 <>, so that is
troubling. I'll leave Kevin to comment on that.
Secondly, RT-33954 was closed as a duplicate of RT-28754 <>, so it would be better to
leave RT-33954 closed and move discussion (including what you recently
posted) into RT-28754 <>. The discussion can start in there and most probably a new bug will need to be
opened (as RT-28754 <> did
result in a code change that at one point appears to have fixed the
problem, so we're possibly dealing with a regression).
Thirdly, whether this is a suitable bug for someone learning the
ropes is debatable. I'll leave Kevin to offer his thoughts, but perhaps
you can propose a patch that resolves this issue for you in your test
scenarios. Also, a good starting point is to develop a simple test
application that helps to demonstrate this issue (preferably the test case
is a single class with no dependencies), and which you can then share in
the jira issue via copy/paste into a comment.
Fourthly, to be a contributor in the OpenJDK requires you to follow a
process to get the paperwork in order. It is wise to get that started as
soon as possible, as it can sometimes take a while. Here's a link to the
process: The main thing is the OCA.
Finally, welcome! :-)

-- Jonathan

On 6/04/2014 1:06 p.m., Sandipan Razzaque wrote:
Hi JavaFX devs!

I was wondering how people felt about re-opening this bug? I don't
it has been fixed (see my comment).

I'm also happy to work on it. But, let me know if you think my time
be better spent elsewhere. I'm keen to take on a small bug to just
get the
hang of the process and community (I'll be stumbling with mercurial
the way too!). I think this bug is an ideal candidate for someone
learning the ropes.


Sandipan Razzaque |

NOTICE from Ab Initio: This email (including any attachments) may contain
information that is subject to confidentiality obligations or is legally
privileged, and sender does not waive confidentiality or privilege. If
received in error, please notify the sender, delete this email, and make
no further use, disclosure, or distribution.

Reply via email to