Uff - I'd like to revisit this topic. As I did some jlink stuff for our
applications adding java.desktop once more bugged me.
I guess the first thing to do is to file a JIRA-Ticket but it really
starts to bug me to include java.desktop although I don't plan to use
printing (and I guess > 90% of the JavaFX don't use the printing API
either but produce PDFs or whatever) and Java-Beans.
Tom
Am 27.03.18 um 14:26 schrieb Kevin Rushforth:
Hi Tom,
Yes, this is an unfortunate dependency. It is "only" an implementation
dependency, meaning that nothing in the public API depends on
java.desktop (which is why we don't "requires transient java.desktop"),
so it should be possible to remove this dependency in the future. As
noted, it is only there because Java Beans is part of the java.desktop
module.
In the interim, your suggestion of "requires static java.base" could be
the way to go. It would need a spec change to the JavaFX beans adapter
classes documenting that they would throw an
UnsupportedOperationException if java.desktop was not present at
runtime, along with a recommendation that applications needing that
functionality should add "requires java.desktop" to their own
module-info.java.
Note that this would only help non-graphical JavaFX applications that
use javafx.base for its collections, properties, and bindings, since
javafx.graphics requires java.desktop in a way that currently cannot
easily be made optional (not without reimplementing printing support
anyway).
-- Kevin
Tom Schindl wrote:
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
