Did someone mention my name ?
Implementing FX printing on top of 2D printing was always a pragmatic
way of delivering in FX 8.
Never something that was done because we wanted to for any reason.
A new native implementation will still cost the same amount of work that
we put off in JDK 8.
So it needs to be prioritised.
But note that I think it can be done one platform at a time.
So if we did a Windows print implementation javafx.graphics might no
longer require it on Windows
(at least for printing) but would still need it on macOS.
This is the right long term answer rather than @ConditionalFeature.
-phil.
On 5/18/21 2:40 PM, Kevin Rushforth wrote:
As noted in the thread you quoted below, removing the dependency on
java.desktop from javafx.base isn't a particularly hard problem, and
is tracked by JDK-8240844 [1]. And even though it will require a spec
change (meaning a CSR), it doesn't result in any loss of
functionality, since in order to usefully do anything with the
JavaBeanXxxxx classes requires java.desktop anyway.
Removing the dependency on java.desktop from javafx.graphics is a
larger issue because of printing. There is also an implementation
dependency on the Desktop class to implement
HostServices::showDocument that would need to be redone. And of course
it depends on the above (eliminating the dependency from javafx.base)
being done first.
For printing we would need to do one of two things:
1. Eliminate the implementation dependency on the Java2D printing
code. This is a large effort, but would preserve existing functionality.
2. Make the JavaFX Printing function "optional" (i.e., make it a
"ConditionalFeature"), such that if java.desktop is not present,
printing doesn't work (all of the printing APIs would throw an
UnsupportedOperationException if java.desktop is not available). An
application that wants to do printing would need to include java.desktop.
Option 1 would be my preferred approach, but as mentioned above it's a
lot of work. Option 2 would need a spec change, and I'm not convinced
we want to do it. If there are enough other developers who would want
this, we could open it up for discussion for some future version (not
JavaFX 17).
Phil might have some thoughts on this.
-- Kevin
[1] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8240844
On 5/18/2021 10:45 AM, Tom Schindl 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
