I would also be surprised if printing and bean adapters are used much, but what are the options? Rewrite the printing implementation.
On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 8:45 PM Tom Schindl <tom.schi...@bestsolution.at> wrote: > 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 > >>> >
