Curiously the redirect happens to me in Chrome & Firefox, but not in IE.

Using Chrome's debugger I can see that it reaches the real site, gets an 
http 200 (not a redirect) from it & then goes to the xmission site. 
Unfortunately chrome doesn't show me why it does so.

Oh well, at least I can read the article in IE now. :-)



From:   Jonathan Giles <jonathan.gi...@oracle.com>
To:     Richard Bair <richard.b...@oracle.com>, ngalarn...@abinitio.com, 
Cc:     openjfx-dev@openjdk.java.net
Date:   07/08/2014 06:02 PM
Subject:        Re: Only 1 GUI thread & dialogs (was Re: 2 JavaFX applets 
in the same     JVM)



Fxexperience.com is fine for me from Australia. I recommend a ctrl-F5 to 
force a refresh.

-- Jonathan
Sent from a touch device. Please excuse my brevity.

On 9 July 2014 07:54:39 GMT+10:00, Richard Bair <richard.b...@oracle.com> 
wrote:
Hmmm… FX Experience is running for me. Is anybody else having this 
problem?

Richard

On Jul 8, 2014, at 2:51 PM, ngalarn...@abinitio.com wrote:

 Hi Steve,
 
 My understanding of Swing was that when in a modal dialog, which blocked 
 the EDT, a second EDT was fired up for the duration of the dialog to keep 

 the events flowing.
 
 When you say, below, that only 1 GUI thread is supported (and that thread 

 is the native GUI thread), how are (will?) modal dialogs handled?
 
 
 Thanks,
 
 Neil
 
 P.S. I've been trying to read Jonathan's article on dialogs on 
 fxexperience.com, but haven't been able to because I get redirected to 
 hosting.xmission.com
 
 
 
 From:   Stephen F Northover <steve.x.northo...@oracle.com>
 To:     Kevin Rushforth <kevin.rushfo...@oracle.com>, 
 ngalarn...@abinitio.com, 
 Cc:     openjfx-dev@openjdk.java.net
 Date:   07/08/2014 03:41 PM
 Subject:        Re: 2 JavaFX applets in the same JVM
 
 
 
 This would imply that there was more than on distinguished GUI thread 
 per process.  JavaFX runs in the native GUI thread by design and more 
 than one GUI thread is not supported in JavaFX and on some platforms 
 (ie. Mac).
 
 Steve
 
 On 2014-07-08, 3:31 PM, Kevin Rushforth wrote:
 
 Is running 2 JavaFX applets in the same JVM supported?
 
 No, this is not supported. RT-29969 (and the non-public RT-32321) is 
 about running multiple applets from the same web page, each in their 
 own JVM. By design, JavaFX runs each applet in its own VM. It is very 
 unlikely that we would ever add the ability to run more than JavaFX 
 applet in the same VM.
 
 -- Kevin
 
 
 ngalarn...@abinitio.com wrote:
 Hello,
 
 What is the status of running 2 JavaFX applets in the same JVM 
 (separate_jvm = false)?
 When we try to load 2 applets into the same JVM we get a runtime 
 error (I think it was class loader related).
 
 When I searched in jira I found RT-29969 (the 2 applet test it refers 
 to may or may not be in the same JVM) which points to RT-32321 which 
 seems to be private (it gives me an error when I try to access it).
 
 Is running 2 JavaFX applets in the same JVM supported?
 
 If not, is that a bug or a feature?
 
 
 Thanks,
 
 Neil
 
 
 
 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. 
 
 
 
 
 
 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. 



 
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