Most of it is the documentation, but there is also the need to find and
document any cases that could fail. My expectation is that those are
uninteresting corner cases.
The documentation for the property adapter classes indicates that its
use is for inter-operating between JavaFX properties an
>
> Perhaps this is the right time to move this forward?
I don't see why not. Except for changing the `requires` declaration in the
module-info and mentioning it in the docs, is there anything else that
needs to be changed?
On Sat, Nov 18, 2023 at 7:48 PM Kevin Rushforth
wrote:
> We would need
We would need to validate the assertion that an app can't doing anything
useful without the app itself importing and using java.beans from the
java.desktop module.
At a minimum this would need a CSR specifying this additional
requirement that the app must depend on java.desktop in order to use
Perhaps the module can be declared 'requires static'.
That was my thinking as well, which is captured in
https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8240844
Perhaps this is the right time to move this forward?
-- Kevin
On 11/17/2023 4:06 PM, Nir Lisker wrote:
Hi,
A previous discussion mentioned
Hi,
A previous discussion mentioned the removal of AWT dependencies. One of the
points that Kevin brought up was
Refactor Java Beans implementation in javafx.base such that java.desktop
> is optional
John and I looked at this some time ago when we discussed the usage of the
javafx base module
