Hi Bruno
I actually like the fact that JavaFX has been split up into some smaller
parts.
E.g., javafx.web is the biggest moster in this context and if you do not
really
need it, it is nice that you leave it out. Also media, swing and fxml
are not
always needed and so you can leave them out. I even have cases where I only
allow javafx.base because that is all you need to write your view-models and
it is good that you can explicitly separate that from all the graphics
and control
stuff. So I have absolutely no problem with that kind of modularization.
Michael
Am 20.04.20 um 20:18 schrieb Bruno Borges:
I do wonder why isn't JavaFX in a single module, like Swing?
For Java developers to build Swing apps, all they need is a "requires
java.desktop".
But for JavaFX, there are multiple modules.
---
*Bruno Borges*
brunoborges.io <http://brunoborges.io>
On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 10:36 AM Michael Paus <m...@jugs.org
<mailto:m...@jugs.org>> wrote:
Oh I see. You are obviously not familiar with the fact that the
JDK has
a built-in test
which checks whether the JavaFX graphics module is on the module path
when you
try to launch an application main class which is derived from the
JavaFX
Application class.
If you try this and the graphics module is not on the module path the
launch will fail
with an error message. That's the only reason why JavaFX programs
cannot
be launched
completely on the classpath and that's where all the trouble
starts. If
you circumvent this
test with the trick, I have mentioned before, everything becomes nice
and easy.
So for me there are only two questions.
1. Is there any proof of a technical reason why JavaFX could not run
correctly on the classpath?
2. If there is no such reason, then why do we torture all the newbies
with the "intricacies" of the
module system instead of just removing this barrier?
As I said before, I have not found any such problem in all the time
since JavaFX was separated
from the JDK, so this test seems to be quite artificial to me but of
course I may be wrong. That's
why I asked here.
Am 20.04.20 um 17:25 schrieb Ty Young:
>
> I'm a bit confused here. if you don't want JPMS then you should be
> able to run everything on the classpath like normal. Netbeans at
least
> doesn't force modules wtih Maven. Or is reflection disabled on
> classpath as of Java 9 too unless you have a module-info?
>
>
>>
>> Michael
>>
>> Am 18.04.20 um 12:58 schrieb Ty Young:
>>>
>>> On 4/18/20 5:01 AM, Michael Paus wrote:
>>>> Getting started with JavaFX is made overly complicated by the
fact
>>>> that the use of the
>>>> module system is enforced by some code in the JDK. Especially
for
>>>> beginners, who just
>>>> want to get some small program running, this is almost always
a big
>>>> source of frustration.
>>>> It is not very good marketing for JavaFX to make these initial
>>>> steps such a pain. If you
>>>> need some evidence for this statement, then just follow
JavaFX on
>>>> Stackoverflow or similar
>>>> sites (and also this mailing list). Almost every day you can
read
>>>> frustrated posts from
>>>> helpless people who would just like to get some JavaFX project
>>>> running but are failing
>>>> because they get lost in the module system jungle.
>>>
>>>
>>> Speaking as a long time JavaFX user(literally since Java 8), I
have
>>> mostly disagree that the JPMS is hurting JavaFX.
>>>
>>>
>>> That said, I don't think the frustration is misplaced. What
you say
>>> is true(Netbeans mailing list is fill of JavaFX issues) and
the end
>>> user is *NOT* to be blamed here.
>>>
>>>
>>> Rather, I think what's to blame is poor documentation, JavaFX
>>> requiring absurd runtime module VM arguments, and poor/buggy IDE
>>> support.
>>>
>>>
>>> Starting with documentation, JavaFX uses reflection for things
like
>>> TableView(everyone's favorite) and CSS style sheets. While
this may
>>> be obvious for people who are more experienced, those who are not
>>> may be very confused when they get an onslaught of error messages
>>> regarding reflection. Better documentation on what requires
>>> reflection, why, and how to enable it would be useful.
>>>
>>>
>>> Likewise, the notice about having to include javafx.graphics
to the
>>> runtime module arguments here:
>>>
>>>
>>> https://openjfx.io/openjfx-docs/#IDE-NetBeans
>>>
>>>
>>> Apply to Maven as well, but it's under Ant for some reason. I
don't
>>> know what was changed in JavaFX 14 that now suddenly requires a
>>> runtime VM argument, but it's a PITA and BS. End users are
going to
>>> struggle with this, and it prevents JavaFX runtime from being
purely
>>> managed by Maven. No other JavaFX version requires this, so it's
>>> mind boggling that all of a sudden JavaFX needs this.
>>>
>>>
>>> Poor/buggy IDE support is really the big one here. I don't know
>>> about other IDEs but Netbeans DOES NOT provide a project template
>>> for creating a JavaFX application with setup dependencies.
Netbeans,
>>> when setup with a Maven project, allows you to select an entire
>>> project(pom) rather than the individual dependencies(jar) which
>>> doesn't work. What you search for also matters: if you search for
>>> "JavaFX" you will get the wrong search results. You need to
search
>>> for "openjfx" which can be confusing.
>>>
>>>
>>> Anyway, yeah, it's a PITA. There is also an issue with Ant based
>>> projects and Netbeans because JavaFX puts its src.zip in a folder
>>> that is supposed to only include the runtime library that has
>>> existed for years(literally a 1 line fix too). No one really uses
>>> Ant anymore so it's probably not a big deal now but yeah, getting
>>> JavaFX working hasn't been "include and done" when it could
>>> potentially be that way.
>>>
>>
