On Tue, 8 Sep 2026 18:43:43 GMT, Marius Hanl <[email protected]> wrote:
> > oof, I don't like the last commit: > > > > 1. too many changes which will give us a lot of merging conflicts > > 2. I like isWindows() and the like in the base. I think it's a mistake to > > move it to graphics > > I pushed it to show how such a move into `javafx.graphics` would look like. > So I can easily revert the commit once we've decided. As written above, I > could imagine that we move the class in a follow-up. In addition to it being more intrusive it will break our closed tests and make backporting system tests more difficult (a clean backport of a new test that adds an OS check will fail to compile). When I suggested looking at moving the graphics-related properties to `javafx.graphics` I was envisioning that the platform checks would stay where they are. So +1 for reverting it. What I'd like to end up with is: javafx.base: PlatformUtil - OS check that are not related to graphics (no Glass or Prism related calls or properties) javafx.graphics: (need a good name here) - Glass / Prism related platform checks I'm OK with the idea of moving the parts that make sense in a follow-up if you prefer. ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jfx/pull/2299#issuecomment-5647858264
