So Tom are you saying that javafx.base and javafx.graphics are the only “core”
modules in JavaFX?
Has that ever been officially stated or established?
How can javafx.controls or javafx.fxml not be considered core modules?
There’s not much you can do with JavaFX without controls and FXML
(An earlier version of this email turned out completely empty when delivered on
the mailing list)
I have used JavaFX on Linux since 8.0 and have never faced any serious issues.
January 3, 2019 4:29 AM, "Ty Young" wrote:
> In my attempt to write a more proper responsive JavaFX UI, I've created
I'm responding to your "moving he charts to a separate JPMS module". It would
make sense to have a javafx.charts, but at least charts are not in javafx.graphics or
lower. Javafx.controls is IMHO an okay-but-not-ideal JPMS module to have them in. But
since they are now, it's not really worth a
But (I assumed charts was in core as Ramon said) taking a look at the javadoc;
charts are in the controls module, not in the core (javafx-base or
javafx-graphics). So that seems quite ok.
https://docs.oracle.com/javase/9/docs/api/javafx.controls-summary.html
On 6-1-2019 02:58, John-Val Rose
I think we actually agree Tom.
I have not established what is “core” JavaFX simply because it has never
crossed my mind that some modules are “core” whereas others must (by inference)
be “peripheral”.
I don’t see any value in refactoring charts into their own module given that,
as I said,
On 1/6/19 5:06 AM, Siddhesh Rane wrote:
(An earlier version of this email turned out completely empty when delivered on
the mailing list)
I have used JavaFX on Linux since 8.0 and have never faced any serious issues.
January 3, 2019 4:29 AM, "Ty Young" wrote:
In my attempt to write a
