Tom, is there an Eclipse issue about this in Bugzilla? As I mentioned some
time ago, if I add the dependency to the .classpath it should function the
same as adding it to module-info.
On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 5:37 PM, Tom Schindl
wrote:
> From a pure library
>From a pure library developer point-of-view this would mean JavaFX would
rely on an implementation detail of the JRE it runs (it's JUnit-Tests).
Does this hold true if I run JavaFX on none Oracle VMs, like Eclipse J9
- not that i plan but well you know ;-)
Tom
On 22.05.18 14:01, Daniel Fuchs
Hi Daniel,
I see that you have changed javafx.base tests to stop using
> java.util.logging for verifying the log messages produced
> by javafx.base classes, and I was wondering whether that
> was really necessary?
This was the most acceptable approach. The reason is that using j.u.l.,
even in
Hi Nir,
By default, the backend of System.Logger is java.util.logging,
as long as the java.logging module is present and no
custom LoggerFinder service has been deployed.
This means that in a usual testing environment, if a library
emits a log message using the System.Logger API, then a test