On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 3:07 PM, Michael Paus <m...@jugs.org> wrote:
> Am 09.02.18 um 14:49 schrieb Mario Torre:
>> On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 2:29 PM, Mark Raynsford <org.open...@io7m.com>
>>> I suppose what I'm really saying is: When (if ever) can I expect JavaFX
>>> to be present unconditionally with OpenJDK installs? I probably can't
>>> migrate to JavaFX until that day...
>> JavaFX is not part of the Java specifications for the JDK or its
>> runtime, so the presence of the library in any distribution of OpenJDK
>> pretty much depends on the vendor distributing you the binaries.
>> There are some Linux distribution that started packaging a subset of
>> OpenJFX (in most cases few notable missing bits are the audio codecs
>> and the webview). I don't know if the same libraries will be bundled
>> with the GPL binary from Oracle, that's probably a question somebody
>> from Oracle may answer.
>> The only way I can see JavaFX becoming included by default everywhere
>> is if it becomes part of the spec.
> In practice this is really a pain point and very bad advertising for JavaFX.
> Who defines that everything Open... can only contain what is included in
> "the spec"?
> Who keeps us from creating a product OpenJDKFX which we define to contain
> OpenJDK + OpenJFX. I'd like to see a complete and open version of Java but
> at the moment everybody seems to restrict themselves to only OpenJDK.
> Even Oracle at their EA download page deliver the open version of the JDK
> without JavaFX which I simply don't understand and which makes this version
> of the JDK completely useless to me.
You already have a complete, compliant and open version of Java. The
Java spec and the TCK define what is and what is not Java, and it
doesn't cover JavaFX.
JavaFX can be included by downstream vendors, but that's entirely up
to them, in that regard is not different than bundling Tomcat or maven
with your JDK.
I agree that would be nice to have everywhere, but again I can't see
that happening until it becomes part of the spec.