>We are looking at the possibility of providing a replacement packaging tool in OpenJDK.
+1 for this. Or something like a Maven Shade build with an exacting set of dependency exclusions, and Launch4J would accomplish something similar? Has the advantage that all the other plugins like resources, and obfuscation can run in one automated build. I currently use this method. On 16 May 2018 at 21:28, <openjfx-dev-requ...@openjdk.java.net> wrote: > Send openjfx-dev mailing list submissions to > openjfx-dev@openjdk.java.net > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo/openjfx-dev > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > openjfx-dev-requ...@openjdk.java.net > > You can reach the person managing the list at > openjfx-dev-ow...@openjdk.java.net > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of openjfx-dev digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: OpenJFX status update (Kevin Rushforth) > 2. Re: OpenJFX status update (Michael Ennen) > 3. Re: OpenJFX status update (Kevin Rushforth) > 4. Re: OpenJFX status update (Michael Ennen) > 5. Re: OpenJFX status update (Scott Palmer) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 12:06:40 -0700 > From: Kevin Rushforth <kevin.rushfo...@oracle.com> > To: Nir Lisker <nlis...@gmail.com> > Cc: "openjfx-dev@openjdk.java.net" <openjfx-dev@openjdk.java.net> > Subject: Re: OpenJFX status update > Message-ID: <82914c4a-2349-6251-4d8c-c0b92f8c1...@oracle.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > > > On 5/16/2018 11:54 AM, Nir Lisker wrote: > > What will happen to the JavaDocs? Will they be removed from the EA > > docs and upon release from the release docs? > > Correct. The JDK 11 docs will no longer include JavaFX modules and > classes. We will need to host separate docs for JavaFX. > > -- Kevin > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 13:05:04 -0700 > From: Michael Ennen <mike.en...@gmail.com> > To: Kevin Rushforth <kevin.rushfo...@oracle.com> > Cc: Alan Snyder <fishgarage...@cbfiddle.com>, > "openjfx-dev@openjdk.java.net" <openjfx-dev@openjdk.java.net> > Subject: Re: OpenJFX status update > Message-ID: > <CAOTPd65iJba2qiY3YYdBp=xLwveWJ3R5QqZnCCDTRAkyt-GUNg@mail. > gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > Is the source code for javapackager fully open source? > > Thanks. > > On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 10:08 AM, Kevin Rushforth < > kevin.rushfo...@oracle.com> wrote: > > > The javapackager was removed from the Oracle JDK along with JavaFX (and > > has never been part of OpenJDK). It isn't included with the standalone > > JavaFX bundles, and doesn't really fit in a standalone FX release. > > > > We are looking at the possibility of providing a replacement packaging > > tool in OpenJDK. > > > > -- Kevin > > > > > > On 5/15/2018 3:16 PM, Alan Snyder wrote: > > > >> Where does java packager fit in this? > >> > >> > >> On May 15, 2018, at 2:59 PM, Kevin Rushforth < > kevin.rushfo...@oracle.com> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> I wanted to update you on the progress of the last couple weeks on the > >>> OpenJFX project: > >>> > >>> 1. As mentioned last week, we now have EA builds of OpenJFX 11 on > >>> java.net [1]. We intend to update this roughly weekly. Currently the > >>> build numbers match the corresponding JDK build number, but that will > not > >>> necessarily be the case going forward, so don't assume that they are in > >>> sync. > >>> > >>> 2. Barring any build or staging issues, this week's OpenJFX 11 EA build > >>> will include the jmods as mentioned earlier [2] [3] > >>> > >>> 3. JavaFX has been removed from JDK 11 as of this week. Starting with > >>> jdk-11+14, early access builds of JDK 11 will not include JavaFX. > >>> > >>> 4. After jdk-11+14 is posted on java.net, and FX is no longer included > >>> in JDK 11, we will start using openjfx-11 as the fix version in JBS to > >>> distinguish it from JDK 11. We still expect to do a release of JavaFX > 11 > >>> around the same time as JDK 11, but using a different release number > will > >>> help track the actual content of JavaFX 11 separately from JDK 11. > >>> > >>> 5. Once this settles down, possibly later this week, I hope to restart > >>> the discussion about OpenJFX policies, etc. I also hope to be a bit > more > >>> responsive over the coming days / weeks than I have been for the last > 3-4 > >>> weeks. Getting the standalone OpenJFX working and removing JavaFX from > the > >>> JDK was quite time consuming as you can probably imagine. > >>> > >>> If you have any general comments or questions about any of this, please > >>> reply to this thread. We may want to split out more detailed > discussions > >>> into their own thread to make it easier to follow. > >>> > >>> -- Kevin > >>> > >>> [1] http://jdk.java.net/openjfx/ > >>> > >>> [2] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/openjfx-dev/2018-May/ > >>> 021856.html > >>> [3] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8202368 > >>> > >>> > > > > > -- > Michael Ennen > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 13:08:44 -0700 > From: Kevin Rushforth <kevin.rushfo...@oracle.com> > To: Michael Ennen <mike.en...@gmail.com> > Cc: Alan Snyder <fishgarage...@cbfiddle.com>, > "openjfx-dev@openjdk.java.net" <openjfx-dev@openjdk.java.net> > Subject: Re: OpenJFX status update > Message-ID: <def80399-cd64-9802-9f3d-d31803218...@oracle.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > > Yes, the source code for javapackager is fully open source. > > -- Kevin > > > On 5/16/2018 1:05 PM, Michael Ennen wrote: > > Is the source code for javapackager fully open source? > > > > Thanks. > > > > On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 10:08 AM, Kevin Rushforth > > <kevin.rushfo...@oracle.com <mailto:kevin.rushfo...@oracle.com>> wrote: > > > > The javapackager was removed from the Oracle JDK along with JavaFX > > (and has never been part of OpenJDK). It isn't included with the > > standalone JavaFX bundles, and doesn't really fit in a standalone > > FX release. > > > > We are looking at the possibility of providing a replacement > > packaging tool in OpenJDK. > > > > -- Kevin > > > > > > On 5/15/2018 3:16 PM, Alan Snyder wrote: > > > > Where does java packager fit in this? > > > > > > On May 15, 2018, at 2:59 PM, Kevin Rushforth > > <kevin.rushfo...@oracle.com > > <mailto:kevin.rushfo...@oracle.com>> wrote: > > > > I wanted to update you on the progress of the last couple > > weeks on the OpenJFX project: > > > > 1. As mentioned last week, we now have EA builds of > > OpenJFX 11 on java.net <http://java.net> [1]. We intend to > > update this roughly weekly. Currently the build numbers > > match the corresponding JDK build number, but that will > > not necessarily be the case going forward, so don't assume > > that they are in sync. > > > > 2. Barring any build or staging issues, this week's > > OpenJFX 11 EA build will include the jmods as mentioned > > earlier [2] [3] > > > > 3. JavaFX has been removed from JDK 11 as of this week. > > Starting with jdk-11+14, early access builds of JDK 11 > > will not include JavaFX. > > > > 4. After jdk-11+14 is posted on java.net > > <http://java.net>, and FX is no longer included in JDK 11, > > we will start using openjfx-11 as the fix version in JBS > > to distinguish it from JDK 11. We still expect to do a > > release of JavaFX 11 around the same time as JDK 11, but > > using a different release number will help track the > > actual content of JavaFX 11 separately from JDK 11. > > > > 5. Once this settles down, possibly later this week, I > > hope to restart the discussion about OpenJFX policies, > > etc. I also hope to be a bit more responsive over the > > coming days / weeks than I have been for the last 3-4 > > weeks. Getting the standalone OpenJFX working and removing > > JavaFX from the JDK was quite time consuming as you can > > probably imagine. > > > > If you have any general comments or questions about any of > > this, please reply to this thread. We may want to split > > out more detailed discussions into their own thread to > > make it easier to follow. > > > > -- Kevin > > > > [1] http://jdk.java.net/openjfx/ > > > > [2] > > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/openjfx-dev/2018- > May/021856.html > > <http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/openjfx-dev/2018- > May/021856.html> > > [3] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8202368 > > <https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8202368> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Michael Ennen > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 13:11:20 -0700 > From: Michael Ennen <mike.en...@gmail.com> > To: Kevin Rushforth <kevin.rushfo...@oracle.com> > Cc: Alan Snyder <fishgarage...@cbfiddle.com>, > "openjfx-dev@openjdk.java.net" <openjfx-dev@openjdk.java.net> > Subject: Re: OpenJFX status update > Message-ID: > <CAOTPd64EauycjgNxCztT1mWrobmNZt6fH3+MijPTqwzvmmrRSQ@mail. > gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > Alright great, no complaints from me then :). > > On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 1:08 PM, Kevin Rushforth < > kevin.rushfo...@oracle.com > > wrote: > > > Yes, the source code for javapackager is fully open source. > > > > -- Kevin > > > > > > > > On 5/16/2018 1:05 PM, Michael Ennen wrote: > > > > Is the source code for javapackager fully open source? > > > > Thanks. > > > > On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 10:08 AM, Kevin Rushforth < > > kevin.rushfo...@oracle.com> wrote: > > > >> The javapackager was removed from the Oracle JDK along with JavaFX (and > >> has never been part of OpenJDK). It isn't included with the standalone > >> JavaFX bundles, and doesn't really fit in a standalone FX release. > >> > >> We are looking at the possibility of providing a replacement packaging > >> tool in OpenJDK. > >> > >> -- Kevin > >> > >> > >> On 5/15/2018 3:16 PM, Alan Snyder wrote: > >> > >>> Where does java packager fit in this? > >>> > >>> > >>> On May 15, 2018, at 2:59 PM, Kevin Rushforth < > kevin.rushfo...@oracle.com> > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> I wanted to update you on the progress of the last couple weeks on the > >>>> OpenJFX project: > >>>> > >>>> 1. As mentioned last week, we now have EA builds of OpenJFX 11 on > >>>> java.net [1]. We intend to update this roughly weekly. Currently the > >>>> build numbers match the corresponding JDK build number, but that will > not > >>>> necessarily be the case going forward, so don't assume that they are > in > >>>> sync. > >>>> > >>>> 2. Barring any build or staging issues, this week's OpenJFX 11 EA > build > >>>> will include the jmods as mentioned earlier [2] [3] > >>>> > >>>> 3. JavaFX has been removed from JDK 11 as of this week. Starting with > >>>> jdk-11+14, early access builds of JDK 11 will not include JavaFX. > >>>> > >>>> 4. After jdk-11+14 is posted on java.net, and FX is no longer > included > >>>> in JDK 11, we will start using openjfx-11 as the fix version in JBS to > >>>> distinguish it from JDK 11. We still expect to do a release of JavaFX > 11 > >>>> around the same time as JDK 11, but using a different release number > will > >>>> help track the actual content of JavaFX 11 separately from JDK 11. > >>>> > >>>> 5. Once this settles down, possibly later this week, I hope to restart > >>>> the discussion about OpenJFX policies, etc. I also hope to be a bit > more > >>>> responsive over the coming days / weeks than I have been for the last > 3-4 > >>>> weeks. Getting the standalone OpenJFX working and removing JavaFX > from the > >>>> JDK was quite time consuming as you can probably imagine. > >>>> > >>>> If you have any general comments or questions about any of this, > please > >>>> reply to this thread. We may want to split out more detailed > discussions > >>>> into their own thread to make it easier to follow. > >>>> > >>>> -- Kevin > >>>> > >>>> [1] http://jdk.java.net/openjfx/ > >>>> > >>>> [2] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/openjfx-dev/2018-May/ > >>>> 021856.html > >>>> [3] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8202368 > >>>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > -- > > Michael Ennen > > > > > > > > > -- > Michael Ennen > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 16:28:27 -0400 > From: Scott Palmer <swpal...@gmail.com> > To: Michael Ennen <mike.en...@gmail.com> > Cc: Alan Snyder <fishgarage...@cbfiddle.com>, > "openjfx-dev@openjdk.java.net" <openjfx-dev@openjdk.java.net> > Subject: Re: OpenJFX status update > Message-ID: <48780552-be48-4ee8-9417-270712f94...@gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > It needs a lot of work. I?m reminded as a see all the issues I?ve > reported against it are being reassigned today. > > Despite the issues, Javapackager was one of the best things to happen for > Java deployment in many years. I?m kinda bummed that it didn?t make it to > OpenJDK. > > jlink isn?t really usable for me, as it requires everything to be 100% > modularized, and that is next to impossible to achieve if you have any > external dependencies. > > There is an issue to have jlink create a native launcher though: > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8182555 < > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8182555> > > (You would think the javapackager guy and the jlink guy would talk to each > other at some point? if such people are still around.) > > Cheers, > > Scott > > > > On May 16, 2018, at 4:11 PM, Michael Ennen <mike.en...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Alright great, no complaints from me then :). > > > > On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 1:08 PM, Kevin Rushforth < > kevin.rushfo...@oracle.com <mailto:kevin.rushfo...@oracle.com> > >> wrote: > > > >> Yes, the source code for javapackager is fully open source. > >> > >> -- Kevin > >> > >> > >> > >> On 5/16/2018 1:05 PM, Michael Ennen wrote: > >> > >> Is the source code for javapackager fully open source? > >> > >> Thanks. > >> > >> On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 10:08 AM, Kevin Rushforth < > >> kevin.rushfo...@oracle.com <mailto:kevin.rushfo...@oracle.com>> wrote: > >> > >>> The javapackager was removed from the Oracle JDK along with JavaFX (and > >>> has never been part of OpenJDK). It isn't included with the standalone > >>> JavaFX bundles, and doesn't really fit in a standalone FX release. > >>> > >>> We are looking at the possibility of providing a replacement packaging > >>> tool in OpenJDK. > >>> > >>> -- Kevin > > > End of openjfx-dev Digest, Vol 78, Issue 28 > ******************************************* >
