Re: [RT-33954] static block...causes IllegalStateException - re-open?

This makes perfect sense. I was scratching my head about this, but now it's clear as to why that code existed in the Control class in the first place. Thanks! - SR Sandipan Razzaque | www.sandipan.net On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 12:01 AM, Jonathan Giles wrote: > I'll leave Kevin to speak to the spe

Re: [RT-33954] static block...causes IllegalStateException - re-open?

Oh and for the record, the workaround for Clojure is to simply use workaround provided (new up a JFXPanel) within Java, and then invoke your Clojure entry point via the Java->Clojure API. This is what I meant by "little inelegan

Re: [RT-33954] static block...causes IllegalStateException - re-open?

I'll leave Kevin to speak to the specifics of the JavaFX startup process, but the argument against what you are doing in your final paragraph is that this causes everyone to pay the controls tax even when they don't make use of UI controls in their application. In particular, this loads the con

Re: [RT-33954] static block...causes IllegalStateException - re-open?

Hi Kevin - Thanks for the clarification that this is indeed by design - and also for the workarounds. For Clojure, the solution looks a little inelegant and isn't idiomatic clojure - any import statement will effectively cause a class initialization to happen - so if you have any source files wit

Re: [RT-33954] static block...causes IllegalStateException - re-open?

upgraded to a BUG if the old launching method is now wrong, not merely old fashioned. Neil From: Richard Bair To: Kevin Rushforth Cc: openjfx-dev@openjdk.java.net, Sandipan Razzaque Date: 04/07/2014 09:43 PM Subject: Re: [RT-33954] static block...causes IllegalState

Re: [RT-33954] static block...causes IllegalStateException - re-open?

ned. Neil From: Richard Bair To: Kevin Rushforth Cc: openjfx-dev@openjdk.java.net, Sandipan Razzaque Date: 04/07/2014 09:43 PM Subject: Re: [RT-33954] static block...causes IllegalStateException - re-open? Sent by:"openjfx-dev" Yes, this is one

Re: [RT-33954] static block...causes IllegalStateException - re-open?

merely old fashioned. Neil From: Richard Bair To: Kevin Rushforth Cc: openjfx-dev@openjdk.java.net, Sandipan Razzaque Date: 04/07/2014 09:43 PM Subject: Re: [RT-33954] static block...causes IllegalStateException - re-open? Sent by:"openjfx-dev" Yes

Re: [RT-33954] static block...causes IllegalStateException - re-open?

, not merely old fashioned. Neil From: Richard Bair To: Kevin Rushforth Cc: openjfx-dev@openjdk.java.net, Sandipan Razzaque Date: 04/07/2014 09:43 PM Subject: Re: [RT-33954] static block...causes IllegalStateException - re-open? Sent by:"openjfx-dev"

Re: [RT-33954] static block...causes IllegalStateException - re-open?

Hi, What you've discovered is exactly how the Java launcher is intended to work (we have unit tests that verify this fact). The launcher recognizes a JavaFX application by checking whether the class to be launched extends javafx.application.Application. So this isn't a side effect, but an int

Re: [RT-33954] static block...causes IllegalStateException - re-open?

Kevin Rushforth Cc: openjfx-dev@openjdk.java.net, Sandipan Razzaque Date: 04/07/2014 09:43 PM Subject: Re: [RT-33954] static block...causes IllegalStateException - re-open? Sent by:"openjfx-dev" Yes, this is one of the few things that I just hate about IDEA. On Ap

Re: [RT-33954] static block...causes IllegalStateException - re-open?

method is now wrong, not merely old fashioned. Neil From: Richard Bair To: Kevin Rushforth Cc: openjfx-dev@openjdk.java.net, Sandipan Razzaque Date: 04/07/2014 09:43 PM Subject:Re: [RT-33954] static block...causes IllegalStateException - re-open? Sent by

Re: [RT-33954] static block...causes IllegalStateException - re-open?

Kevin/Jonathan - Steve's example in the Jira captures perfectly what I was encountering in Java, and I've been trying to boil it down into a minimal failing example - reconciling it with what I've experienced in dynamic languages. Turns out it's about whether or not you extend Application. This l

Re: [RT-33954] static block...causes IllegalStateException - re-open?

Yes, this is one of the few things that I just hate about IDEA. On Apr 7, 2014, at 6:00 PM, Kevin Rushforth wrote: > I can't speak to other IntelliJ issues, but the root cause of this particular > one is the same thing that Debbie ran into last week -- IntelliJ doesn't > launch programs using

Re: [RT-33954] static block...causes IllegalStateException - re-open?

I can't speak to other IntelliJ issues, but the root cause of this particular one is the same thing that Debbie ran into last week -- IntelliJ doesn't launch programs using the standard Java launcher. For whatever reason, it uses its own launcher. This might be worth raising with JetBrains. -

Re: [RT-33954] static block...causes IllegalStateException - re-open?

Kevin, Yes, that is the program I used, and yes, I get the 'Toolkit not initialized' exception. I am running IntelliJ, so that is the reason. I switched over to Eclipse and the code run as expected. I am slightly bothered by the occasional failures that seem to be IntelliJ-specific. I have a

Re: [RT-33954] static block...causes IllegalStateException - re-open?

Just to make sure we are running the same program, the one I ran to verify that RT-33954 is fixed was the simple test program in the comments of that bug. Here it is (with the imports omitted for brevity). public class Example extends Application { public static void main(String[] args) {

Re: [RT-33954] static block...causes IllegalStateException - re-open?

Hi Jonathan, Thanks for the fast response and the warm welcome :-) I've moved my comment into RT-28754, so let's await Kevin's input. Will work on a test class as the next thing as you've recommended. I received confirmation of the OCA being processed just yesterday, so should be OK from that fr

Re: [RT-33954] static block...causes IllegalStateException - re-open?

Firstly, I agree - this does seem to still be reproducible despite Kevin's comment that it should have been resolved in JavaFX 8.0 due to RT-28754 , so that is troubling. I'll leave Kevin to comment on that. Secondly, RT-33954 was closed as a dupl