Another question: do imports of javafx.* packages point to the javafx source or to the jdk compilation?
For example, in the base module, the type test.javafx.beans.InvalidationListenerMock imports javafx.beans.InvalidationListener (twice, by the way, along with Observable). Should the imported class be the one in "rt\modules\javafx.base\src\main\java\javafx\beans\InvalidationListener.java" or the one in "jdk\modules\javafx.base\javafx\beans\InvalidationListener.class"? Currently, the way it is in the Eclipse files is that the jdk .class files are imported first[1], but it seemed odd to me - if I work on 2 files which depend on each other they should see the changes in each other at once. [1] http://hg.openjdk.java.net/openjfx/jfx-dev/rt/file/305d127c6ed5/modules/javafx.base/.classpath ("JRE_CONTAINER" is before "src/main/java"), - Nir On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 9:20 PM, Kevin Rushforth <kevin.rushfo...@oracle.com > wrote: > inline > > Nir Lisker wrote: > > Alright, cleaned that part. fxpackager build fails with an internal NPE in > Eclipse, so I'm going to leave that alone and all of the projects that > depends on it. > > Now that projects can be built there are errors in deeper levels: > > 1. All org.junit imports cannot be resolved. This causes tons of errors in > various test folders obviously. All the .classpath files use > > <classpathentry kind="con" path="org.eclipse.jdt.junit. > JUNIT_CONTAINER/4"/> > > which is a jar distributed with Eclipse (in the plugins folder) with > version 4.12.0. Is this really where the imports are supposed to come from? > How does it work in Netbeans or IntelliJ? > > > For NetBeans we use their internal version of JUnit. I don't know about > IntelliJ (maybe someone else on the list can answer that). > > 2. In the 'base' module, in "/src/main/java-jfr/com/sun/javafx/logging" > there are imports of com.oracle.jrockit.jfr that can't be resolved. Where > are these located? > > > These classes used to be part of the JFR commercial feature in the Oracle > JDK. The java-jfr sources are obsolete and no longer built (and no longer > buildable), so you can safely remove it from your IDE files. I also still > see references to it in the netbeans/base project. I will file a bug to > remove this obsolete code and fix the NetBeans references at the same time. > > -- Kevin > > > > On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 5:24 PM, Kevin Rushforth < > kevin.rushfo...@oracle.com> wrote: > >> Ah, I see. Then yes, just removing the old ones is fine. >> >> As for the larger question, unless there are dependencies on apps, you >> can assume that the only ones you care about are the ones created by >> "gradle sdk". >> >> -- Kevin >> >> >> >> Nir Lisker wrote: >> >> So this is why I was asking about the optional stuff: 'graphics' module >> has BOTH >> >> build/resources/jsl-decora >> build/resources/jsl-prism >> >> and >> >> build/gensrc/jsl-decora >> build/gensrc/jsl-prism >> >> That led me to think that when the new dependencies were added the old >> ones weren't removed. Those that weren't optional (like the /resources >> ones, which I removed) were easy to catch and we could have finished here. >> Those that are optional are not causing trouble even when missing because >> they are optional. >> >> gradle sdk does not create the ones which are marked optional that Iv'e >> surveyed, but I don't know if that's the only way they can be created. If I >> compare solely with gradle sdk then I can just remove whatever is missing >> on grounds that it's left over. >> >> - Nir >> >> On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 4:06 PM, Kevin Rushforth < >> kevin.rushfo...@oracle.com> wrote: >> >>> One more thing about the specific path you mentioned as not being there. >>> >>> <classpathentry kind="src" exported="true" path="build/resources/jsl-deco >>> ra"/> >>> <classpathentry kind="src" exported="true" path="build/resources/jsl-pris >>> m"/> >>> >>> These are still being created by 'gradle sdk', but the path is wrong >>> (the files moved in JDK 9) and should be: >>> >>> build/gensrc/jsl-decora >>> build/gensrc/jsl-prism >>> >>> You might want to take that into account. >>> >>> -- Kevin >>> >>> >>> >>> Kevin Rushforth wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Nir Lisker wrote: >>>> >>>>> Iv'e removed all the classpath dependencies that were causing errors. >>>>> I don't mind sorting out the rest of the files while at it, though for >>>>> that >>>>> there are a few things I'm not sure about: >>>>> >>>>> 1. Some dependencies are marked as optional and as such they don't >>>>> cause errors, but they are still missing. Is it safe to remove them or is >>>>> it possible that they will be created as some point? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Some of them might be created...not sure without checking. I recommend >>>> running "gradle sdk" and then seeing if the dependencies are there. >>>> >>>> Examples are the 'base' module with "src/test/resources" and >>>>> "src/main/resources" optional dependencies, and 'controls' module has the >>>>> optional dependency "src/main/resources" commented out. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I see. You might as well leave them, but it probably doesn't matter. >>>> >>>> 2. Can I assume that all other dependencies are really needed? (Eclipse >>>>> won't complain about unused ones as far as I know.) >>>>> >>>> >>>> That seems best. >>>> >>>> 3. What are the formatting standards for XML (indentation, line >>>>> length...)? From a quick look I see different styles in different files. >>>>> >>>> >>>> For IDE files, we don't worry about formatting. In many cases they are >>>> auto-generated anyway. >>>> >>>> -- Kevin >>>> >>>> >>>>> - Nir >>>>> >>>> >> >
