Would it help Eclipse if instead of an empty jar, the jar contained just
the module-info.class file? Or will that then cause problems because of
two .jar files with the same module name?
-- Kevin
On 7/13/2018 7:37 AM, Johan Vos wrote:
Hi Steve,
Yes, that has been considered, but I'm more than happy to re-open the
discussion.
The problem with javafx-controls-${javafx.platform} as the artifactId is
that in that case, the gradle developer is in all cases required to add the
platform suffix to the dependency, which makes it very hard to manage
JavaFX projects via version control, as the dependency file will hard-code
contain e.g. javafx-controls-linux, where other developers would use
javafx-controls-windows
- Johan
On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 4:30 PM Steve Hruda <steve.hr...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
Johan asked me to move the empty jar discussion to the mailing list.
As I mentioned at GitHub, we did some tests with the published SNAPSHOT's
and we had to force an exclude of the empty jars at the dependecies.
Otherwise e.g. Eclipse shows a warning that the module name is instable
because of the "auto-generated" module name in case of the empty jars.
Thanks at Joeri for explaining the reason. I understand now the reason for
the empty jar.
https://github.com/javafxports/openjdk-jfx/pull/83#issuecomment-404828804
I never tried it and I know that it doesn't fit to the familar handling of
platform dependent jars...
Have you thought about it to use the platform variable at the artifactId?
Something like:
<artifactId>javafx-controls-${javafx.platform}</artifactId>
Best Regards,
Steve
