I still think having .jmod files available from an artifact repository would be
helpful. I’ve deployed them from the SDK to my local Artifactory repo for my
own builds. Using Gradle I create a JRE with jlink if needed for running
debug/tests during development, or I use an OpenJDK distribution that has
bundled in JavaFX (like those available from Azul or BellSoft). The primary
downside of using the .jmod files is that they can’t be used at runtimes o you
need to build a JRE, but that is the recommended practice now for distributing
applications anyway. I use jpackage for distribution so I'm bundling a JRE
with the JavaFX modules.
Using .jar files for libraries that contain native code is messy IMO. JMOD
files are supposed to solve that - they should be the preferred way to include
JavaFX in a build, but installing the JavaFX SDK is a pain when we use
dependency management for everything else.
Scott
> On Sep 10, 2021, at 9:10 AM, Abhinay Agarwal <abhinay_agar...@live.com> wrote:
>
> JavaFX 17 Maven artifacts currently fail to compile modular JavaFX
> application. The non-modular application still works.
>
> To explain what's going on, let have a look at JavaFX and its Maven
> distribution since version 11:
>
> 1. JavaFX is distributed in non-platform (empty) and platform specific
> artifacts
> 2. These artifacts along with the javafx plugins have helped developers to
> use JavaFX in platform agnostic way
> 3. Platform jars have the `module-info.java` file, whereas,
> `Automatic-Module-Name` was present in the empty jar's MANIFEST.MF.
> 4. However, using `maven-jlink-plugin` with a JavaFX application fails since
> Automatic modules are not supported in JLink [1]
> 5. After a brief discussion, it was decided to remove the Automatic Module
> Name from non-platform jars [2]
>
> The EA releases were working perfectly after the change was made. However,
> with recent JavaFX 17, modular applications are failing to compile with Maven.
>
> The reason behind this lies in the `plexus-java` library used by
> `maven-compiler-plugin`:
>
> 1. `plexus-java` doesn't allow duplicate entries with same module-name on
> module-path
> 2. For 17, `plexus-java` resolves both empty and platform jar to have the
> same module-name
> 3. However, with `-ea+xx`, `plexus-java` resolves the module name for empty
> jar as null and we never discovered the bug until 17 was released
>
> 17
> ---
> /home/.m2/repository/org/openjfx/javafx-controls/17/javafx-controls-17.jar
> org.codehaus.plexus.languages.java.jpms.JavaModuleDescriptor@c1c939a0
> Module Name: javafx.controls
> /home/.m2/repository/org/openjfx/javafx-controls/17/javafx-controls-17-linux.jar
> org.codehaus.plexus.languages.java.jpms.JavaModuleDescriptor@31c3da0e
> Module Name: javafx.controls
>
> 17-ea+18
> --------
> /home/.m2/repository/org/openjfx/javafx-controls/17-ea+18/javafx-controls-17-ea+18.jar
> Module Name: null
> /home/.m2/repository/org/openjfx/javafx-controls/17-ea+18/javafx-controls-17-ea+18-linux.jar
> org.codehaus.plexus.languages.java.jpms.JavaModuleDescriptor@c896ba80
> Module Name: javafx.controls
>
> ----X----
>
> This whole experience has made us realised we need to rethink how we package
> JavaFX Maven artifacts.
> We are still discussing about the approach and naming, but we are throwing it
> out in the open to gather feedback:
>
> 1. Instead of 1 module per component, we will have 2 modules (javafx.base.api
> and javafx.base.platform)
> 2. The `javafx.base.api`, unlike empty jar, will contain all generic Java code
> 3. The `javafx.base.platform` will contain platform-specific native + Java
> code
> 4. Current application declare their module-descriptor as:
>
> ```
> module app {
> requires javafx.base;
> }
> ```
>
> 5. In future this may be changed depending on how we end up wiring these
> modules together:
>
> ```
> module app {
> requires javafx.base [.api or .platform];
> }
> ```
>
>
> [1] https://www.mail-archive.com/dev@maven.apache.org/msg123978.html
> [2] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8264998
