Hi Johan,

Thanks for filing the bug.

If we really do need Character and IDN, then the cleanest approach might be to define new fields in a suitable JavaFX class and assign the appropriate values to them.

-- Kevin


Johan Vos wrote:
I filed a bug (https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8192806) and I am looking into it.

It seems a bit weird to me that the java.lang.Character and java.net.IDN header files are needed. I'll remove them and see where it fails. But if they are needed (and they probably are), it won't be easy to generate them with javac -h as that requires the source code instead of the classfiles. That would require access to the java.lang.Character and java.net.IDN java source code in OpenJDK, from within OpenJFX.

- Johan

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 8:02 PM Kevin Rushforth <kevin.rushfo...@oracle.com <mailto:kevin.rushfo...@oracle.com>> wrote:

    Hi Johan,

    Thanks for pointing this out. I had missed that this was targeted
    to JDK 10.

    We eliminated all but one use of javah, in favor of javac -h, in JDK 9
    [1]. The only one remaining is in the web module. I can't remember why
    that wasn't switched at the same time (I have a fuzzy recollection
    that
    it might have had something to do with incremental compilation), but
    yes, it seems like this will need to be fixed.

    If you would like to file a bug then this would be a great thing
    for the
    community to work on. This will block us from moving to JDK 10 as
    a boot
    JDK, so if we end up doing that for JDK 10 then this would need to be
    done soon.

    Let me know if you would like to work on this.

    Thanks.

    -- Kevin

    [1] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8161704


    Johan Vos wrote:
    > Hi,
    >
    > I learned javah might be removed in Java 10 (
    > http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/313) but as far as I know, it is
    still used in
    > OpenJFX:
    >
    > defineProperty("JAVAH", cygpath("$JDK_HOME/bin/javah${IS_WINDOWS
    ? '.exe' :
    > ''}"))
    >
    > Are there already plans to move to javac -h instead?
    > It seems a relative easy task that might be done by someone from
    the wider
    > community?
    >
    > Thanks,
    >
    > - Johan
    >

Reply via email to