Did you even read the email you are replying to? Or the email I was myself replying to?
If I have spell it out so bluntly that everyone can understand then I will only get myself into further trouble with the "Big O". I used a technique known locally as "sarcasm". It's sort of the default mode of communication in this country. But I assumed most people could "join the dots" regardless of where they are located... P.S. Again, on a completely unrelated note, are you planning to use Java EE 8? If so, how old are you? > On 10 Jun 2016, at 22:01, Ranie Jade Ramiso <raniejaderam...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Okay this thread is about what to do with javafx jmx plugin. How does that > even relate to whether oracle is using javafx internally? > > >> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016, 7:52 PM Felix Bembrick <felix.bembr...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> Unfortunately, it has a lot to do with it. >> >> Do you actually realise how much of the entire JMC is written using JavaFX? >> (Not to mention what percentage of Java developers even know about or use >> JMC). >> >> Please check and then feel free to respond and enlighten us all with your >> findings. 100%? At least 90% surely? Hmm... >> >> And, if there are actually any *other* "vestiges" of JavaFX usage within >> Oracle, I would be delighted to hear about them! >> >> In fact, I am confident the entire JavaFX community would absolutely love to >> hear that it's obviously being used in hundreds of internal applications >> (especially with Oracle being such a huge Java-focused company). I mean it >> is the "standard" way of building GUI applications with Java right? So of >> course they would have no reason whatsoever to not base their entire >> internal software product suite on this advanced and clearly well supported >> technology. >> >> And throw in the dozens of commercial JavaFX offerings from Oracle and... >> >> > On 10 Jun 2016, at 21:01, Tom Schindl <tom.schi...@bestsolution.at> wrote: >> > >> > What has the removal of JMX for JavaFX todo with Oracle using JavaFX >> > themselves? >> > >> > There are projects at Oracle who for sure do use JavaFX and one of them >> > is installed in your JDK! It's Java-Mission-Control. >> > >> > Tom >> > >> >> On 10.06.16 12:46, Felix Bembrick wrote: >> >> I am taking that as a "yes" answer to my original question. >> >> >> >> On a completely unrelated topic, do Microsoft employees all have Macs on >> >> their desktops and carry iPhones and iPads around? >> >> >> >> No? >> >> >> >> Well I bet Apple employees do! >> >> >> >>> On 10 Jun 2016, at 20:01, dalibor topic <dalibor.to...@oracle.com> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> I suspect that particular plugin is extremely rarely used, judging by >> >>> https://github.com/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=%22javafx-mx.jar%22&type=Code&ref=searchresults >> >>> showing 0 results. >> >>> >> >>> cheers, >> >>> dalibor topic >> >>> >> >>>> On 09.06.2016 00:31, Kevin Rushforth wrote: >> >>>> As some of you may be aware, JavaFX has shipped a JMX plugin as a >> >>>> separate jar file along with the JDK (not part of the JRE) in >> >>>> <JDK>/lib/javafx-mx.jar. Development on this plugin stopped prior to JDK >> >>>> 8 being shipped, although we continued to ship javafx-mx.jar in JDK 8. >> >>>> >> >>>> Are there any developers that still use this? We haven't seen any bug >> >>>> reports or had questions on it for quite a while. I note that this jar >> >>>> file has been gone from JDK 9 ea since build 111 and we are trying to >> >>>> determine how best to address this in JDK 9. >> >>>> >> >>>> Our options are: >> >>>> >> >>>> 1) Remove it entirely and drop this tooling support >> >>>> >> >>>> 2) Continue to ship it as a legacy jar file, meaning that any use would >> >>>> require command line qualified exports to be added since it uses >> >>>> internal packages >> >>>> >> >>>> 3) Turn it into a proper JDK-only module, javafx.jmx; it would not be >> >>>> one of the default modules, so it would need to be added with -addmods. >> >>>> >> >>>> Obviously #1 would be the least amount of work, and given that it isn't >> >>>> being actively maintained, might be a viable solution. If we do need to >> >>>> keep it, then #2 might be less effort than #3, while still preserving >> >>>> the ability for developers to use it. This is only used for tooling, so >> >>>> requiring qualified exports, as is done for Robot and >> >>>> PerformanceTracker, is not a problem. >> >>>> >> >>>> Separately, if we don't remove it for JDK 9, we probably will deprecate >> >>>> it with the intention to remove it in a future release. >> >>>> >> >>>> -- Kevin >> >>> >> >>> -- >> >>> <http://www.oracle.com> Dalibor Topic | Principal Product Manager >> >>> Phone: +494089091214 <tel:+494089091214> | Mobile: +491737185961 >> >>> <tel:+491737185961> >> >>> >> >>> ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG | Kühnehöfe 5 | 22761 Hamburg >> >>> >> >>> ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG >> >>> Hauptverwaltung: Riesstr. 25, D-80992 München >> >>> Registergericht: Amtsgericht München, HRA 95603 >> >>> >> >>> Komplementärin: ORACLE Deutschland Verwaltung B.V. >> >>> Hertogswetering 163/167, 3543 AS Utrecht, Niederlande >> >>> Handelsregister der Handelskammer Midden-Niederlande, Nr. 30143697 >> >>> Geschäftsführer: Alexander van der Ven, Jan Schultheiss, Val Maher >> >>> >> >>> <http://www.oracle.com/commitment> Oracle is committed to developing >> >>> practices and products that help protect the environment >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Thomas Schindl, CTO >> > BestSolution.at EDV Systemhaus GmbH >> > Eduard-Bodem-Gasse 5-7, A-6020 Innsbruck >> > http://www.bestsolution.at/ >> > Reg. Nr. FN 222302s am Firmenbuchgericht Innsbruck > > -- > Cheers, > Ranie Jade Ramiso > Software Engineer > w: http://polymorphicpanda.io
