Ah, OK. If it won't cause you any problems, then it still seems worth
considering.
I would like to hear from at least one IntelliJ user as to whether this
change affects users of that IDE -- either positively or negatively.
Does anyone else have any concerns?
-- Kevin
On 6/24/2021 11:33 AM, Tom Schindl wrote:
well I can push a new release in a few days if I know your final
decision? You proposed option 1 and to me that sounds fine to me.
Tom
Am 24.06.21 um 20:22 schrieb Kevin Rushforth:
Since it seems that this change will cause Eclipse to not find the
sources without changes on their part (see Tom's message), and might
not be as important any more for Netbeans users, it's less clear to
me that we should make this change. Netbeans users who download and
use the JavaFX SDK can already use the documented workaround of
adding the individual jar files rather than the entire lib directory
to the module path.
Anyone feel strongly that we should still do this?
-- Kevin
On 6/24/2021 2:37 AM, Ty Young wrote:
Netbeans no longer defaults to creating Ant based projects unlike
years ago & there has been, IIRC, some talk on further retiring
support for it and Maven works just fine provided that you use the
JavaFX Maven plugin*.
Still maybe worth fixing since support isn't completely removed and
there may be cases where one might want to download and use a JavaFX
SDK dist.
* the situation with IDE JavaFX support is complicated due to a
project created outside Netbeans not set up with hacks Netbeans
needs for green run button but there is an in-IDE option to do
javafx:run and intellij needs a custom run action created to do
javafx:run AFAIK, but I digress.
On 6/14/2021 1:15 PM, Kevin Rushforth wrote:
We deliver a set of modular jars in the lib directory of the
standalone JavaFX SDK. We also deliver src.zip for use by IDEs into
that same directory. If you add the lib directory to your
application's module path in your IDE, it will try to load src.zip
as if it were a jar file, and will fail. This is a pain point for
developers using the SDK. This problem has been raised on the
mailing list a couple of times, and I think it's time to fix it.
This issue is tracked in JBS by JDK-8258499 [1].
I propose to move the src.zip file from the lib directory to the
top directory of the SDK.
Alternatively, we could create a new directory for src.zip (either
a sibling of lib or sub-directory under lib). However, I think it
would be easier to find in the top dir of the SDK, and I don't see
the need for a new directory just to hold src.zip.
Before I create the PR and the associated CSR, I'd like to hear
developer's opinions on this.
-- Kevin
[1] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8258499
