I filed https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8300697 to track this. In addition to fixing it, I propose to add a very visible warning so that developers know they are building in this "HAS_JAVAFX_MODULES" mode, since it could otherwise be a surprise when no standalone build artifacts are produced.

-- Kevin


On 1/19/2023 12:15 PM, Kevin Rushforth wrote:
I'm not sure that will work in general. The more important thing to note is that we really can't build and run an actual standalone JavaFX SDK if the JDK already has the javafx.* modules. I'll file a bug and we can think about possible solutions.

Basically, though, unless you are intending to build a set of javafx.* modules to import into your own local custom build of the JDK, you need to use a boot JDK that doesn't have the javafx.* modules.

-- Kevin


On 1/19/2023 11:45 AM, Scott Palmer wrote:
I guess --patch-module should be used instead of --update-module-path ? It seems to be a little more complicated.

On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 2:17 PM Scott Palmer <swpal...@gmail.com> wrote:

    I found the problem.  I'm using a build of OpenJDK from Azul that
    includes the javafx modules.  You probably aren't, which means
    the --upgrade-module-path option isn't being used so there is no
    conflict with javac parameters.
    I downloaded a JDK17 without the JavaFX modules and teh build worked.
    I think this will have to be fixed somehow or the documentation
    needs to change to forbid a JDK with built-in JavaFX modules. 
    The current attempts in the build script to deal with existing
    javafx modules are not working.
    A fix would be better.

    Scott

    On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 1:29 PM Scott Palmer <swpal...@gmail.com>
    wrote:

        Tried a gradle clean (which works fine after manually
        deleting the stale mac_tools.properties file) and confirmed
        the build folder was gone from the graphics module and
        elsewhere, no difference.  I'm running the gradle wrapper, so
        it's using Gradle as defined by the project.  I'm also
        usually on the bleeding edge with Gradle, so if I didn't use
        gradlew it would have been Gradle 8.0-rc-2 :-)

        Scott


        On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 1:20 PM Kevin Rushforth
        <kevin.rushfo...@oracle.com> wrote:

            I recommend removing the entire build directory (although
            if you managed to get "gradle clean" working, then it
            will do that).

            What version of gradle are you using? You will need
            gradle 7.6 to use JDK 19.

            -- Kevin


            On 1/19/2023 10:17 AM, Scott Palmer wrote:
            Tried again with JDK 17.0.5, just in case... still not
            working.

            On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 3:18 PM Scott Palmer
            <swpal...@gmail.com> wrote:

                I'm trying to build OpenJFX on my Mac.  I figured
                out an issue with the Gradle scripts, they fail if
                there is a stale mac_tools.properties file. A
                'clean' also fails for the same reason so you have
                to manually delete the file to get it to be
                re-built.  But now the build fails with the
                following error:

                > Task :graphics:compileJava FAILED
                You specified both --module-source-path and a
                sourcepath. These options are mutually exclusive.
                Ignoring sourcepath.
                error: option --upgrade-module-path cannot be used
                together with --release
                Usage: javac <options> <source files>
                use --help for a list of possible options

                FAILURE: Build failed with an exception.

                I'm not sure why I would be seeing this error if the
                build is working for everyone else.  I'm using JDK 19.

                Any hints?

                Btw, the Mac section of
                https://wiki.openjdk.org/display/OpenJFX/Building+OpenJFX
                still mentions needing Mercurial.  I don't think
                that's true anymore.

                Regards,

                Scott



Reply via email to