Netbeans X & Java 11?

[Michael Dever]

Oracle seems to have Destroyed the combination of:
Netbeans, JavaFX, and SceneBuilder, building JavaFX from an IDE.

Is there any other IDE that supports and builds: JavaFX FXML Applications,
out of the box that just works, and that you can design the GUI application 
from SceneBuilder?


Thanks,
Mike Dever

Re: native libs in modules

[Michael Dever]

What IDE are you all using.
Clearly, it can't be Netbeans.
That's still stuck on Java 8.




On Apr 29, 2018, at 1:05 PM, Johan Vos  wrote:

Now that the OpenJFX SDK that works with Java 11 is about to be released in
EA, we should think about releasing the modules.

In case you download the OpenJFX SDK, running an app goes like
java --module-path $OPENJFXSDK/lib --add-modules javafx.controls your.app

If you use gradle or maven, the same should be achieved using e.g.
dependencies {
   compile 'javafx:javafx.controls:11.0.0'
}

(ignore the naming and versioning for now)

This will download the javafx controls module and its dependencies from
e.g. maven central. The javafx controls module info declares a requires
entry for javafx.base and javafx.graphics so those will be downloaded.

The question is how the native libs should be downloaded. It is possible to
bundle the native libs with the modules, but there are a number of options
for dealing with platform-specific libraries:

1. javafx.graphics contains all native libraries for all platforms.
2. a generic javafx.graphics module containing java code only, plus N
platform-specific modules (or jar) containing the native code. An example
of how this is used is ND4J:
https://oss.sonatype.org/content/repositories/snapshots/org/nd4j/nd4j-native/1.0.0-SNAPSHOT/

To make it more complex, there are a number of options for e.g. prims
leading to a number of native libs. Do we want to include all relevant
options for all platforms?

- Johan

Re: [11] Review request: 8199357: Remove references to applets and Java Web Start from FX

[Michael Dever]

Removing Applets from Java, an easy programming model, to put web objects up on 
the internet.
A Blunder of a decision.

But, sure clean it up.




On Apr 10, 2018, at 6:45 PM, Kevin Rushforth  wrote:

Phil & Ajit,

Please review these changes:

https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8199357
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8199357/webrev.00/

Details are in JBS.

-- Kevin

Re: modules versus SDK's

[Michael Dever]

Agreed.


On Mar 27, 2018, at 8:16 PM, Pedro Duque Vieira  
wrote:

Like Kevin says I don't think this is a one or the other choice.

I think we need to think about people who are just evaluating the platform
or learning, and whether making them also have to learn about build tools
is good.

I'd say part of the web's success is it shallow learning curve, and why
languages that are technically inferior like javascript are some times
preferred over technically superior languages.

I'd argue we should also have an installer to make the process of
evaluating/learning as easy as possible. We do need more javafx
programmers/adopters.

My 2 cents,

-- 
Pedro Duque Vieira