On 11/20/2012 2:14 AM, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 20/11/2012 02:43, David DeHaven wrote:
:
After discussion and debate, we've decided the best course of action
right now is to drop the JavaFX-Application-Class support for this
round and revisit (hopefully quickly) in M6. This should alleviate
any
On 20/11/2012 02:43, David DeHaven wrote:
:
After discussion and debate, we've decided the best course of action right now
is to drop the JavaFX-Application-Class support for this round and revisit
(hopefully quickly) in M6. This should alleviate any concerns for Profile
support. There are oth
On 11/19/2012 6:43 PM, David DeHaven wrote:
I've read the other mails and I see that there are a number of discussion
points that needs to be resolved before the proposal can move forward.
Yes, we've been discussing offline to nail down the actual wants for this
feature.
After discussion and
>>> If Main-Class is always present with JavaFX-Application-Class, it may be no
>>> impact; but this seems to be unclear at this moment. Kevin can chime in
>>> here and looks like this requires more investigation before we continue the
>>> code review.
>> I've read the other mails and I see th
Hi Dave,
I hadn't yet given much thought to retiring the JavaFX-Application-Class
attribute, but I agree that it could be considered legacy if we do make
the change to the javafxpackager to drop it.
I just talked with Mandy about a couple of launcher questions that she
had relating to the ma
>> If Main-Class is always present with JavaFX-Application-Class, it may be no
>> impact; but this seems to be unclear at this moment. Kevin can chime in
>> here and looks like this requires more investigation before we continue the
>> code review.
> I've read the other mails and I see that th
On 16/11/2012 19:55, Mandy Chung wrote:
If Main-Class is always present with JavaFX-Application-Class, it may
be no impact; but this seems to be unclear at this moment. Kevin can
chime in here and looks like this requires more investigation before
we continue the code review.
I've read the o
On 11/16/12 9:38 AM, David DeHaven wrote:
I cleaned it up quite a bit, I think it looks a lot better now:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ddehaven/8001533/webrev.1/
The comments still need some attention, I'll get that first thing on the morrow.
-DrD-
I haven't done a detailed code review but I'm
>> I cleaned it up quite a bit, I think it looks a lot better now:
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ddehaven/8001533/webrev.1/
>>
>> The comments still need some attention, I'll get that first thing on the
>> morrow.
>>
>> -DrD-
>>
> I haven't done a detailed code review but I'm wondering about
Mandy,
Thanks Mandy!, that tip cleaned up the code quite a bit, it is generally
looking
a lot better.
David,
One minor fix the while loop can be converted to a for loop making it
slightly more compact, But I am fine either way.
-Class sc = mainClass.getSuperclass();
-wh
On 16/11/2012 04:49, David DeHaven wrote:
:
I cleaned it up quite a bit, I think it looks a lot better now:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ddehaven/8001533/webrev.1/
The comments still need some attention, I'll get that first thing on the morrow.
-DrD-
I haven't done a detailed code review but I'
>>> L496-517 somewhat duplicates the logic added for FX in the
>>> getMainClassFromJar method. Have you considered some refactoring
>>> work you could do to simplify the fix since I think once you get
>>> the classname of the entry point (either from a JAR or command-line
>>> and with a
On 11/15/2012 5:01 PM, David DeHaven wrote:
L428-430: is this fallback needed? Would it be better
if LauncherHelper.getApplicationClass() always returns
a non-null class if the mainClass has been loaded successfully.
Looks like this is the case in your implementation.
Good poi
On 11/15/2012 5:54 PM, Steve Sides wrote:
FXLauncherTest.java - very good test that covers many test cases.
Do you plan to add the classpath case (i.e. not from a
jar file)?
I hadn't, but if it's worthwhile then we could certainly add a test
to do so. Thoughts on this Steve?
I added it t
FXLauncherTest.java - very good test that covers many test cases.
Do you plan to add the classpath case (i.e. not from a
jar file)?
I hadn't, but if it's worthwhile then we could certainly add a test to do so.
Thoughts on this Steve?
I added it to the test plan to be implemented after in
> java.c: L427 it would be helpful to add a comment to explain
>the case where appClass is different than mainClass.
>Probably the comment above L425 should be updated to
>reflect the support for JavaFX
Done.
>L428-430: is this fallback needed? Would it be better
>if Launch
Hi David,
On 11/14/12 9:43 AM, David DeHaven wrote:
Bug:
http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=8001533
Webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ddehaven/8001533/webrev.0/
java.c: L427 it would be helpful to add a comment to explain
the case where appClass is different than mainCla
17 matches
Mail list logo
