Hi, Anyone else has an opinion on that? Is require static the way to go?
Tom On 21.03.18 23:23, Tom Schindl wrote: > Hi, > > I always thought the JavaFX-Codebase should be able to run with just the > java.base module but I was browsing the codebase a bit and was suprised > (or rather shocked) that even the base-module requires java.desktop. > > If I get it correct this because of the java.beans (provided by the > adapters) stuff is found in there. Why hasn't the requires there not > defined as: > > requires static java.desktop; > > Tom >
