PlatformImpl isn't API. It's an internal method in a non-public,
non-documented class. I don't want to pick a less desirable name just
because there is an internal method with the same name that works
differently in 9.
-- Kevin
Ali Ebrahimi wrote:
Hi,
I know concerns here, but I think
This is intentional to preserve compatibility for existing internal code
(testing tools and deployment code) to avoid regressions. I will file a
follow-on issue to find and eliminate this difference, since it does
seem like an unnecessary inconsistency. Thanks for pointing this out.
-- Kevin
Yes, you can just use "new Stage()" to create a stage for such an
application to use. As for registering it as primary, we hadn't thought
to provide such an API. I don't think it is needed, since the ability to
embed the primary stage in an applet in a browser (which is not possible
unless you
Wow, this patch will simplify the architecture of JavaFX testing
libraries/frameworks.
>From my perspective it is important to have a method to start the FX
runtime and thread.
I guess one would just use `new Stage()` to create the primary Stage? Or do
we need to register the primary Stage
I don't believe there is any inconsistency here. We are preserving the
existing semantics in PlatformImpl.startup to not prevent duplicate
calls by default, whilst we are reversing the semantics for the public
API in Platform, where we do prevent duplicate calls. The end result is
that we have
Hi,
I know concerns here, but I think PlatformImpl.startup() and
Platform.startup() should have same behavior from caller's POW.
So I think if we can not have default behavior(duplicate calls) for public
API so please change method name.
My suggestions: Platform.safeStartup() or
Hi,
I think there is an inconsistency between :
PlatformImpl.java
public static void startup(final Runnable r) {
+startup(r, false); //* here default value false
+ }
and
Platform.java
+public static void startup(Runnable runnable) {
+
Jonathan and all,
Please review the following new API proposal to add the ability to
explicitly start the FX runtime.
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8090585
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8090585/webrev.00/
-- Kevin
