Re: OpenJFX status update

[Kevin Rushforth]

Have anyone tried to build the javapackager code with OpenJDK 11 and create
a javapackager executable file? It could be used as a standalone tool until
the new jpackager is ready.


This shouldn't be too hard to do, presuming that you can't use the 
javapackager from JDK 10. You will need to add the qualified exports on 
the command line when you run it.


-- Kevin


On 8/7/2018 6:44 AM, Sverre Moe wrote:

The javapackager tool and associated jdk.packager and
jdk.packager.services modules have been removed from the JDK along with
JavaFX. They are not part of the standalone JavaFX builds.

-- Kevin

What options are there if one relies on the javapackager to create native

runtime images and native package installers?

We cannot then upgrade to Java 11 since it has been removed.
Neither can we use jlink instead since our application is not yet
modularized. Though jlink does not create the

There is a draft for a new jpackager tool, but when it will be ready seems
to be undetermined.
http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/8200758

Have anyone tried to build the javapackager code with OpenJDK 11 and create
a javapackager executable file? It could be used as a standalone tool until
the new jpackager is ready.

/Sverre

Re: OpenJFX status update

[Sverre Moe]

>
> The javapackager tool and associated jdk.packager and
> jdk.packager.services modules have been removed from the JDK along with
> JavaFX. They are not part of the standalone JavaFX builds.
>
> -- Kevin
>
> What options are there if one relies on the javapackager to create native
runtime images and native package installers?

We cannot then upgrade to Java 11 since it has been removed.
Neither can we use jlink instead since our application is not yet
modularized. Though jlink does not create the

There is a draft for a new jpackager tool, but when it will be ready seems
to be undetermined.
http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/8200758

Have anyone tried to build the javapackager code with OpenJDK 11 and create
a javapackager executable file? It could be used as a standalone tool until
the new jpackager is ready.

/Sverre

Re: OpenJFX status update

[Kevin Rushforth]

I was somewhat imprecise. That should have read:

We still expect to do a release of JavaFX 11 around the same time as 
JDK 11, but using a different **JBS release version** will help track 
the actual content of JavaFX 11 separately from JDK 11.


The JavaFX version is still 11 as reported by the value of the system 
property "javafx.version" and in the names of the release bundles. No 
changes are needed. We are just prefixing the release value in JBS with 
"openjfx" before the "11" to distinguish it from the JDK 11 release.


After JavaFX 11, we could have a discussion on whether to make the next 
version "12" or something else.


-- Kevin

On 5/18/2018 12:05 PM, Nir Lisker wrote:


We still expect to do a release of JavaFX 11 around the same time
as JDK 11, but using a different release number will help track
the actual content of JavaFX 11 separately from JDK 11.


 Iv'e just realized that not releasing JavaFX with version number 11 
will cause confusion with all the '@since 11' tags. We could search 
for all '@since 11' and replace them with the new version number 
(maybe much to the confusion of users since it breaks continuity).


- Nir

On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 12:59 AM, Kevin Rushforth 
> wrote:


I wanted to update you on the progress of the last couple weeks on
the OpenJFX project:

1. As mentioned last week, we now have EA builds of OpenJFX 11 on
java.net  [1]. We intend to update this roughly
weekly. Currently the build numbers match the corresponding JDK
build number, but that will not necessarily be the case going
forward, so don't assume that they are in sync.

2. Barring any build or staging issues, this week's OpenJFX 11 EA
build will include the jmods as mentioned earlier [2] [3]

3. JavaFX has been removed from JDK 11 as of this week. Starting
with jdk-11+14, early access builds of JDK 11 will not include JavaFX.

4. After jdk-11+14 is posted on java.net , and FX
is no longer included in JDK 11, we will start using openjfx-11 as
the fix version in JBS to distinguish it from JDK 11. We still
expect to do a release of JavaFX 11 around the same time as JDK
11, but using a different release number will help track the
actual content of JavaFX 11 separately from JDK 11.

5. Once this settles down, possibly later this week, I hope to
restart the discussion about OpenJFX policies, etc. I also hope to
be a bit more responsive over the coming days / weeks than I have
been for the last 3-4 weeks. Getting the standalone OpenJFX
working and removing JavaFX from the JDK was quite time consuming
as you can probably imagine.

If you have any general comments or questions about any of this,
please reply to this thread. We may want to split out more
detailed discussions into their own thread to make it easier to
follow.

-- Kevin

[1] http://jdk.java.net/openjfx/

[2]
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/openjfx-dev/2018-May/021856.html

[3] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8202368

Re: OpenJFX status update

[Kevin Rushforth]

Sure. No problem.

-- Kevin


On 5/18/2018 1:22 PM, Nir Lisker wrote:

I see, sorry about the false flag.

On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 11:13 PM, Kevin Rushforth 
> wrote:


I was somewhat imprecise. That should have read:


We still expect to do a release of JavaFX 11 around the same time
as JDK 11, but using a different **JBS release version** will
help track the actual content of JavaFX 11 separately from JDK 11.


The JavaFX version is still 11 as reported by the value of the
system property "javafx.version" and in the names of the release
bundles. No changes are needed. We are just prefixing the release
value in JBS with "openjfx" before the "11" to distinguish it from
the JDK 11 release.

After JavaFX 11, we could have a discussion on whether to make the
next version "12" or something else.

-- Kevin


On 5/18/2018 12:05 PM, Nir Lisker wrote:


We still expect to do a release of JavaFX 11 around the same
time as JDK 11, but using a different release number will
help track the actual content of JavaFX 11 separately from
JDK 11.


 Iv'e just realized that not releasing JavaFX with version number
11 will cause confusion with all the '@since 11' tags. We could
search for all '@since 11' and replace them with the new version
number (maybe much to the confusion of users since it breaks
continuity).

- Nir

On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 12:59 AM, Kevin Rushforth
>
wrote:

I wanted to update you on the progress of the last couple
weeks on the OpenJFX project:

1. As mentioned last week, we now have EA builds of OpenJFX
11 on java.net  [1]. We intend to update
this roughly weekly. Currently the build numbers match the
corresponding JDK build number, but that will not necessarily
be the case going forward, so don't assume that they are in sync.

2. Barring any build or staging issues, this week's OpenJFX
11 EA build will include the jmods as mentioned earlier [2] [3]

3. JavaFX has been removed from JDK 11 as of this week.
Starting with jdk-11+14, early access builds of JDK 11 will
not include JavaFX.

4. After jdk-11+14 is posted on java.net ,
and FX is no longer included in JDK 11, we will start using
openjfx-11 as the fix version in JBS to distinguish it from
JDK 11. We still expect to do a release of JavaFX 11 around
the same time as JDK 11, but using a different release number
will help track the actual content of JavaFX 11 separately
from JDK 11.

5. Once this settles down, possibly later this week, I hope
to restart the discussion about OpenJFX policies, etc. I also
hope to be a bit more responsive over the coming days / weeks
than I have been for the last 3-4 weeks. Getting the
standalone OpenJFX working and removing JavaFX from the JDK
was quite time consuming as you can probably imagine.

If you have any general comments or questions about any of
this, please reply to this thread. We may want to split out
more detailed discussions into their own thread to make it
easier to follow.

-- Kevin

[1] http://jdk.java.net/openjfx/

[2]
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/openjfx-dev/2018-May/021856.html


[3] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8202368

Re: OpenJFX status update

[Nir Lisker]

I see, sorry about the false flag.

On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 11:13 PM, Kevin Rushforth <
kevin.rushfo...@oracle.com> wrote:

> I was somewhat imprecise. That should have read:
>
> We still expect to do a release of JavaFX 11 around the same time as JDK
> 11, but using a different **JBS release version** will help track the
> actual content of JavaFX 11 separately from JDK 11.
>
>
> The JavaFX version is still 11 as reported by the value of the system
> property "javafx.version" and in the names of the release bundles. No
> changes are needed. We are just prefixing the release value in JBS with
> "openjfx" before the "11" to distinguish it from the JDK 11 release.
>
> After JavaFX 11, we could have a discussion on whether to make the next
> version "12" or something else.
>
> -- Kevin
>
>
> On 5/18/2018 12:05 PM, Nir Lisker wrote:
>
> We still expect to do a release of JavaFX 11 around the same time as JDK
>> 11, but using a different release number will help track the actual content
>> of JavaFX 11 separately from JDK 11.
>
>
>  Iv'e just realized that not releasing JavaFX with version number 11 will
> cause confusion with all the '@since 11' tags. We could search for all
> '@since 11' and replace them with the new version number (maybe much to the
> confusion of users since it breaks continuity).
>
> - Nir
>
> On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 12:59 AM, Kevin Rushforth <
> kevin.rushfo...@oracle.com> wrote:
>
>> I wanted to update you on the progress of the last couple weeks on the
>> OpenJFX project:
>>
>> 1. As mentioned last week, we now have EA builds of OpenJFX 11 on
>> java.net [1]. We intend to update this roughly weekly. Currently the
>> build numbers match the corresponding JDK build number, but that will not
>> necessarily be the case going forward, so don't assume that they are in
>> sync.
>>
>> 2. Barring any build or staging issues, this week's OpenJFX 11 EA build
>> will include the jmods as mentioned earlier [2] [3]
>>
>> 3. JavaFX has been removed from JDK 11 as of this week. Starting with
>> jdk-11+14, early access builds of JDK 11 will not include JavaFX.
>>
>> 4. After jdk-11+14 is posted on java.net, and FX is no longer included
>> in JDK 11, we will start using openjfx-11 as the fix version in JBS to
>> distinguish it from JDK 11. We still expect to do a release of JavaFX 11
>> around the same time as JDK 11, but using a different release number will
>> help track the actual content of JavaFX 11 separately from JDK 11.
>>
>> 5. Once this settles down, possibly later this week, I hope to restart
>> the discussion about OpenJFX policies, etc. I also hope to be a bit more
>> responsive over the coming days / weeks than I have been for the last 3-4
>> weeks. Getting the standalone OpenJFX working and removing JavaFX from the
>> JDK was quite time consuming as you can probably imagine.
>>
>> If you have any general comments or questions about any of this, please
>> reply to this thread. We may want to split out more detailed discussions
>> into their own thread to make it easier to follow.
>>
>> -- Kevin
>>
>> [1] http://jdk.java.net/openjfx/
>>
>> [2] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/openjfx-dev/2018-May/
>> 021856.html
>> [3] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8202368
>>
>>
>
>

Re: OpenJFX status update

[Nir Lisker]

>
> We still expect to do a release of JavaFX 11 around the same time as JDK
> 11, but using a different release number will help track the actual content
> of JavaFX 11 separately from JDK 11.


 Iv'e just realized that not releasing JavaFX with version number 11 will
cause confusion with all the '@since 11' tags. We could search for all
'@since 11' and replace them with the new version number (maybe much to the
confusion of users since it breaks continuity).

- Nir

On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 12:59 AM, Kevin Rushforth <
kevin.rushfo...@oracle.com> wrote:

> I wanted to update you on the progress of the last couple weeks on the
> OpenJFX project:
>
> 1. As mentioned last week, we now have EA builds of OpenJFX 11 on java.net
> [1]. We intend to update this roughly weekly. Currently the build numbers
> match the corresponding JDK build number, but that will not necessarily be
> the case going forward, so don't assume that they are in sync.
>
> 2. Barring any build or staging issues, this week's OpenJFX 11 EA build
> will include the jmods as mentioned earlier [2] [3]
>
> 3. JavaFX has been removed from JDK 11 as of this week. Starting with
> jdk-11+14, early access builds of JDK 11 will not include JavaFX.
>
> 4. After jdk-11+14 is posted on java.net, and FX is no longer included in
> JDK 11, we will start using openjfx-11 as the fix version in JBS to
> distinguish it from JDK 11. We still expect to do a release of JavaFX 11
> around the same time as JDK 11, but using a different release number will
> help track the actual content of JavaFX 11 separately from JDK 11.
>
> 5. Once this settles down, possibly later this week, I hope to restart the
> discussion about OpenJFX policies, etc. I also hope to be a bit more
> responsive over the coming days / weeks than I have been for the last 3-4
> weeks. Getting the standalone OpenJFX working and removing JavaFX from the
> JDK was quite time consuming as you can probably imagine.
>
> If you have any general comments or questions about any of this, please
> reply to this thread. We may want to split out more detailed discussions
> into their own thread to make it easier to follow.
>
> -- Kevin
>
> [1] http://jdk.java.net/openjfx/
>
> [2] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/openjfx-dev/2018-May/
> 021856.html
> [3] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8202368
>
>

Re: OpenJFX status update

[Kevin Rushforth]

Hi Johan,

On 5/18/2018 4:51 AM, Johan Vos wrote:

Hi Kevin,

Related to point 3:
what exactly do you mean with "Java FX has been removed from JDK 11"?
It isn't part of the OpenJDK 11-ea13 either so I don't see the difference?


It was removed from the Oracle JDK 11 (it never was part of OpenJDK 11). 
The javafx.* modules were included in jdk-11-ea+13 and gone in 
jdk-11-ea+14. From the point of view of OpenJDK 11 there is no change.


I thought references to JavaFX would be removed from 
sun.launcher.LauncherHelper, but they are still there. Do you know if 
there are plans to remove the (implicit) launcher there?


This came up during the review of changes I made to FXLauncherTest [1]. 
Alan and Mandy suggested that this functionality should be removed at 
some point, but it will be an incompatible change if done in JDK 11. I 
plan to file a follow-up JBS issue to consider removing this. One 
possible timeline would be to "deprecate it for removal" in JDK 12 and 
remove it in JDK 13.


-- Kevin

[1] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8202553




Thanks,

- Johan

On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 12:09 AM Kevin Rushforth 
> wrote:


I wanted to update you on the progress of the last couple weeks on
the
OpenJFX project:

1. As mentioned last week, we now have EA builds of OpenJFX 11 on
java.net  [1]. We intend to update this roughly
weekly. Currently the
build numbers match the corresponding JDK build number, but that will
not necessarily be the case going forward, so don't assume that
they are
in sync.

2. Barring any build or staging issues, this week's OpenJFX 11 EA
build
will include the jmods as mentioned earlier [2] [3]

3. JavaFX has been removed from JDK 11 as of this week. Starting with
jdk-11+14, early access builds of JDK 11 will not include JavaFX.

4. After jdk-11+14 is posted on java.net , and FX
is no longer included
in JDK 11, we will start using openjfx-11 as the fix version in
JBS to
distinguish it from JDK 11. We still expect to do a release of
JavaFX 11
around the same time as JDK 11, but using a different release number
will help track the actual content of JavaFX 11 separately from
JDK 11.

5. Once this settles down, possibly later this week, I hope to
restart
the discussion about OpenJFX policies, etc. I also hope to be a
bit more
responsive over the coming days / weeks than I have been for the last
3-4 weeks. Getting the standalone OpenJFX working and removing JavaFX
from the JDK was quite time consuming as you can probably imagine.

If you have any general comments or questions about any of this,
please
reply to this thread. We may want to split out more detailed
discussions
into their own thread to make it easier to follow.

-- Kevin

[1] http://jdk.java.net/openjfx/

[2]
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/openjfx-dev/2018-May/021856.html
[3] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8202368

Re: OpenJFX status update

[Johan Vos]

Hi Kevin,

Related to point 3:
what exactly do you mean with "Java FX has been removed from JDK 11"?
It isn't part of the OpenJDK 11-ea13 either so I don't see the difference?

I thought references to JavaFX would be removed from
sun.launcher.LauncherHelper, but they are still there. Do you know if there
are plans to remove the (implicit) launcher there?

Thanks,

- Johan

On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 12:09 AM Kevin Rushforth 
wrote:

> I wanted to update you on the progress of the last couple weeks on the
> OpenJFX project:
>
> 1. As mentioned last week, we now have EA builds of OpenJFX 11 on
> java.net [1]. We intend to update this roughly weekly. Currently the
> build numbers match the corresponding JDK build number, but that will
> not necessarily be the case going forward, so don't assume that they are
> in sync.
>
> 2. Barring any build or staging issues, this week's OpenJFX 11 EA build
> will include the jmods as mentioned earlier [2] [3]
>
> 3. JavaFX has been removed from JDK 11 as of this week. Starting with
> jdk-11+14, early access builds of JDK 11 will not include JavaFX.
>
> 4. After jdk-11+14 is posted on java.net, and FX is no longer included
> in JDK 11, we will start using openjfx-11 as the fix version in JBS to
> distinguish it from JDK 11. We still expect to do a release of JavaFX 11
> around the same time as JDK 11, but using a different release number
> will help track the actual content of JavaFX 11 separately from JDK 11.
>
> 5. Once this settles down, possibly later this week, I hope to restart
> the discussion about OpenJFX policies, etc. I also hope to be a bit more
> responsive over the coming days / weeks than I have been for the last
> 3-4 weeks. Getting the standalone OpenJFX working and removing JavaFX
> from the JDK was quite time consuming as you can probably imagine.
>
> If you have any general comments or questions about any of this, please
> reply to this thread. We may want to split out more detailed discussions
> into their own thread to make it easier to follow.
>
> -- Kevin
>
> [1] http://jdk.java.net/openjfx/
>
> [2]
> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/openjfx-dev/2018-May/021856.html
> [3] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8202368
>
>

Re: OpenJFX status update

[Kevin Rushforth]

On 5/17/2018 3:16 AM, Ty Young wrote:

And could the new standalone modules be integrated with the source 
code somehow so that a JDK without JavaFX support can be compiled?


Not sure what you mean, but you can use an OpenJDK without modules 
+ the JavaFX standalone modules to build and run your program.





It's an option, sure. My problem with it is that it creates so much 
unnecessary disk usage because each bundled application requires 
it's own copy of JavaFX. If you had 10 standalone JavaFX 
applications it would be 1GB easily if they where all modular 
projects, which are around 106MB for me. Creating an app bundle 
using classpath is around 200MB(post JDK 8 was 250+ IIRC).



One option for you would be to use jlink to create a jre image that 
includes the javafx modules. This week's openjfx-11-ea+14 build will 
have a jmods bundle that you can use for this purpose.




So like it was done with OpenJDK 8 overlay but just with modules 
instead, basically?


At a high-level, you can think of jlink as doing something like this. It 
can create a custom JRE image by taking the JDK, adding some additional 
modules -- including your application(s), if desired -- and strip out 
the modules you don't need.


Arch Linux uses the rolling release update model, so it usually gets 
the newest software before any other Linux distro.


Removing -Werror from those two lines got me a compile, though with 
many more warnings. However, attempting to compile an OpenJDK with 
JavaFX results in its own build fail due to jdk packager module being 
missing in the JavaFX build. See:


https://pastebin.com/MzFLDxgK


Ah, I see the problem now. It seems you are trying to build JavaFX for 
inclusion into an OpenJDK. That isn't the expected mode any longer now 
that we have decoupled FX from the JDK, but it still should work. This 
is a regression caused by my recent change to enable building the 
standalone SDK. We no longer build the jdk.packager* modules in that 
mode, and yet there is still a qualified export from javafx.graphics to 
jdk.packager. This doesn't fail the FX build because we don't fail the 
FX build on warnings.


I filed the following bug:

https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8203378

I'll fix it soon, but your workaround is to do what you've been doing 
and use an Oracle JDK 10 build for as long as you need to build a JDK 
using FX bits that you build. Ultimately, switching to jlink will likely 
be the better solution for you.


I tried copying the modular src files from a previous build and 
pasting them into the new one that doesn't have it and now I just get 
a build fail saying that JDK packager is marked for deprecation. I 
take it JDK Packager is in the process of being removed then?


The javapackager tool and associated jdk.packager and 
jdk.packager.services modules have been removed from the JDK along with 
JavaFX. They are not part of the standalone JavaFX builds.


-- Kevin

Re: OpenJFX status update

[Ty Young]

On 05/16/2018 02:04 PM, Kevin Rushforth wrote:



On 5/16/2018 10:49 AM, Ty Young wrote:

That one, as mentioned in the wiki build guide. I get an immediate 
build fail(see: https://pastebin.com/geR4LLMm). The JDK works just 
fine: I can set it as the default JDK, run Netbeans, set the project 
source to 11, and my application builds just fine.


Ah, I see. You didn't say what version of gradle or JDK you were 
using, but this looks like a known problem in trying to run gradle 
with JDK 11. See:


https://github.com/gradle/gradle/issues/4860
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8199069

This is marked as fixed in gradle 4.8-rc1, but I haven't confirmed this.



I have every Oracle JDK and OpenJDK version from 8 and above installed. 
I had assumed that Oracle JDK(s) were required because they were the 
only ones that would work as OpenJDK 9 and 10 builds in Arch Linux don't 
support JavaFX and using a self compiled JDK 11 isn't possible due to 
that bug.


I'm using Gradle 4.7 and Oracle JDK 10 to build.


And could the new standalone modules be integrated with the source 
code somehow so that a JDK without JavaFX support can be compiled?


Not sure what you mean, but you can use an OpenJDK without modules + 
the JavaFX standalone modules to build and run your program.





It's an option, sure. My problem with it is that it creates so much 
unnecessary disk usage because each bundled application requires it's 
own copy of JavaFX. If you had 10 standalone JavaFX applications it 
would be 1GB easily if they where all modular projects, which are 
around 106MB for me. Creating an app bundle using classpath is around 
200MB(post JDK 8 was 250+ IIRC).



One option for you would be to use jlink to create a jre image that 
includes the javafx modules. This week's openjfx-11-ea+14 build will 
have a jmods bundle that you can use for this purpose.




So like it was done with OpenJDK 8 overlay but just with modules 
instead, basically?





As I wrote before and am still having issues with, after a 
successful first compile, JavaFX no longer compiles in Arch Linux 
for me. Any attempt to do so results in a bunch of warning 
messages(see: https://pastebin.com/rJqu7Nws) which cause the build 
to fail due to warnings being treated as errors(Should they even be 
ignored?). In addition. I'm now getting a GCC warning about XIMProc 
returning an int when it should return void (*). I don't know C or 
the native APIs so right now I'm at a loss of what to do besides 
trying to compile on another distro - which is something I *really* 
would prefer not to have to do.


What gcc version are you using? And what Linux distro?



8.1.0 and Arch Linux(Antergos which is basically Arch Linux).



That's not a distro I'm familiar with, but it may or may not be 
related to the issue you are seeing. The gcc errors may be related to 
compiling with a more-strict 8.1 compiler; we have tested with up to 
gcc 7.3, but nothing newer than that. A quick look suggests that we 
will need some way to suppress that warning. For now, you can modify 
buildSrc/linux.gradle and remove the "-Werror" flag from 
LINUX.glass.glassgtk2.ccFlags (ditto for gtk3).




Arch Linux uses the rolling release update model, so it usually gets the 
newest software before any other Linux distro.


Removing -Werror from those two lines got me a compile, though with many 
more warnings. However, attempting to compile an OpenJDK with JavaFX 
results in its own build fail due to jdk packager module being missing 
in the JavaFX build. See:


https://pastebin.com/MzFLDxgK

I tried copying the modular src files from a previous build and pasting 
them into the new one that doesn't have it and now I just get a build 
fail saying that JDK packager is marked for deprecation. I take it JDK 
Packager is in the process of being removed then?



-- Kevin






-- Kevin

Re: OpenJFX status update

[Scott Palmer]

It needs a lot of work.  I’m reminded as a see all the issues I’ve reported 
against it are being reassigned today.

Despite the issues, Javapackager was one of the best things to happen for Java 
deployment in many years.  I’m kinda bummed that it didn’t make it to OpenJDK.

jlink isn’t really usable for me, as it requires everything to be 100% 
modularized, and that is next to impossible to achieve if you have any external 
dependencies.

There is an issue to have jlink create a native launcher though:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8182555 


(You would think the javapackager guy and the jlink guy would talk to each 
other at some point… if such people are still around.)

Cheers,

Scott


> On May 16, 2018, at 4:11 PM, Michael Ennen  wrote:
> 
> Alright great, no complaints from me then :).
> 
> On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 1:08 PM, Kevin Rushforth  
>> wrote:
> 
>> Yes, the source code for javapackager is fully open source.
>> 
>> -- Kevin
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 5/16/2018 1:05 PM, Michael Ennen wrote:
>> 
>> Is the source code for javapackager fully open source?
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 10:08 AM, Kevin Rushforth <
>> kevin.rushfo...@oracle.com > wrote:
>> 
>>> The javapackager was removed from the Oracle JDK along with JavaFX (and
>>> has never been part of OpenJDK). It isn't included with the standalone
>>> JavaFX bundles, and doesn't really fit in a standalone FX release.
>>> 
>>> We are looking at the possibility of providing a replacement packaging
>>> tool in OpenJDK.
>>> 
>>> -- Kevin

Re: OpenJFX status update

[Michael Ennen]

Alright great, no complaints from me then :).

On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 1:08 PM, Kevin Rushforth  wrote:

> Yes, the source code for javapackager is fully open source.
>
> -- Kevin
>
>
>
> On 5/16/2018 1:05 PM, Michael Ennen wrote:
>
> Is the source code for javapackager fully open source?
>
> Thanks.
>
> On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 10:08 AM, Kevin Rushforth <
> kevin.rushfo...@oracle.com> wrote:
>
>> The javapackager was removed from the Oracle JDK along with JavaFX (and
>> has never been part of OpenJDK). It isn't included with the standalone
>> JavaFX bundles, and doesn't really fit in a standalone FX release.
>>
>> We are looking at the possibility of providing a replacement packaging
>> tool in OpenJDK.
>>
>> -- Kevin
>>
>>
>> On 5/15/2018 3:16 PM, Alan Snyder wrote:
>>
>>> Where does java packager fit in this?
>>>
>>>
>>> On May 15, 2018, at 2:59 PM, Kevin Rushforth 
 wrote:

 I wanted to update you on the progress of the last couple weeks on the
 OpenJFX project:

 1. As mentioned last week, we now have EA builds of OpenJFX 11 on
 java.net [1]. We intend to update this roughly weekly. Currently the
 build numbers match the corresponding JDK build number, but that will not
 necessarily be the case going forward, so don't assume that they are in
 sync.

 2. Barring any build or staging issues, this week's OpenJFX 11 EA build
 will include the jmods as mentioned earlier [2] [3]

 3. JavaFX has been removed from JDK 11 as of this week. Starting with
 jdk-11+14, early access builds of JDK 11 will not include JavaFX.

 4. After jdk-11+14 is posted on java.net, and FX is no longer included
 in JDK 11, we will start using openjfx-11 as the fix version in JBS to
 distinguish it from JDK 11. We still expect to do a release of JavaFX 11
 around the same time as JDK 11, but using a different release number will
 help track the actual content of JavaFX 11 separately from JDK 11.

 5. Once this settles down, possibly later this week, I hope to restart
 the discussion about OpenJFX policies, etc. I also hope to be a bit more
 responsive over the coming days / weeks than I have been for the last 3-4
 weeks. Getting the standalone OpenJFX working and removing JavaFX from the
 JDK was quite time consuming as you can probably imagine.

 If you have any general comments or questions about any of this, please
 reply to this thread. We may want to split out more detailed discussions
 into their own thread to make it easier to follow.

 -- Kevin

 [1] http://jdk.java.net/openjfx/

 [2] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/openjfx-dev/2018-May/
 021856.html
 [3] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8202368


>>
>
>
> --
> Michael Ennen
>
>
>


-- 
Michael Ennen

Re: OpenJFX status update

[Kevin Rushforth]

Yes, the source code for javapackager is fully open source.

-- Kevin


On 5/16/2018 1:05 PM, Michael Ennen wrote:

Is the source code for javapackager fully open source?

Thanks.

On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 10:08 AM, Kevin Rushforth 
> wrote:


The javapackager was removed from the Oracle JDK along with JavaFX
(and has never been part of OpenJDK). It isn't included with the
standalone JavaFX bundles, and doesn't really fit in a standalone
FX release.

We are looking at the possibility of providing a replacement
packaging tool in OpenJDK.

-- Kevin


On 5/15/2018 3:16 PM, Alan Snyder wrote:

Where does java packager fit in this?


On May 15, 2018, at 2:59 PM, Kevin Rushforth
> wrote:

I wanted to update you on the progress of the last couple
weeks on the OpenJFX project:

1. As mentioned last week, we now have EA builds of
OpenJFX 11 on java.net  [1]. We intend to
update this roughly weekly. Currently the build numbers
match the corresponding JDK build number, but that will
not necessarily be the case going forward, so don't assume
that they are in sync.

2. Barring any build or staging issues, this week's
OpenJFX 11 EA build will include the jmods as mentioned
earlier [2] [3]

3. JavaFX has been removed from JDK 11 as of this week.
Starting with jdk-11+14, early access builds of JDK 11
will not include JavaFX.

4. After jdk-11+14 is posted on java.net
, and FX is no longer included in JDK 11,
we will start using openjfx-11 as the fix version in JBS
to distinguish it from JDK 11. We still expect to do a
release of JavaFX 11 around the same time as JDK 11, but
using a different release number will help track the
actual content of JavaFX 11 separately from JDK 11.

5. Once this settles down, possibly later this week, I
hope to restart the discussion about OpenJFX policies,
etc. I also hope to be a bit more responsive over the
coming days / weeks than I have been for the last 3-4
weeks. Getting the standalone OpenJFX working and removing
JavaFX from the JDK was quite time consuming as you can
probably imagine.

If you have any general comments or questions about any of
this, please reply to this thread. We may want to split
out more detailed discussions into their own thread to
make it easier to follow.

-- Kevin

[1] http://jdk.java.net/openjfx/

[2]

http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/openjfx-dev/2018-May/021856.html


[3] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8202368






--
Michael Ennen

Re: OpenJFX status update

[Michael Ennen]

Is the source code for javapackager fully open source?

Thanks.

On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 10:08 AM, Kevin Rushforth <
kevin.rushfo...@oracle.com> wrote:

> The javapackager was removed from the Oracle JDK along with JavaFX (and
> has never been part of OpenJDK). It isn't included with the standalone
> JavaFX bundles, and doesn't really fit in a standalone FX release.
>
> We are looking at the possibility of providing a replacement packaging
> tool in OpenJDK.
>
> -- Kevin
>
>
> On 5/15/2018 3:16 PM, Alan Snyder wrote:
>
>> Where does java packager fit in this?
>>
>>
>> On May 15, 2018, at 2:59 PM, Kevin Rushforth 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I wanted to update you on the progress of the last couple weeks on the
>>> OpenJFX project:
>>>
>>> 1. As mentioned last week, we now have EA builds of OpenJFX 11 on
>>> java.net [1]. We intend to update this roughly weekly. Currently the
>>> build numbers match the corresponding JDK build number, but that will not
>>> necessarily be the case going forward, so don't assume that they are in
>>> sync.
>>>
>>> 2. Barring any build or staging issues, this week's OpenJFX 11 EA build
>>> will include the jmods as mentioned earlier [2] [3]
>>>
>>> 3. JavaFX has been removed from JDK 11 as of this week. Starting with
>>> jdk-11+14, early access builds of JDK 11 will not include JavaFX.
>>>
>>> 4. After jdk-11+14 is posted on java.net, and FX is no longer included
>>> in JDK 11, we will start using openjfx-11 as the fix version in JBS to
>>> distinguish it from JDK 11. We still expect to do a release of JavaFX 11
>>> around the same time as JDK 11, but using a different release number will
>>> help track the actual content of JavaFX 11 separately from JDK 11.
>>>
>>> 5. Once this settles down, possibly later this week, I hope to restart
>>> the discussion about OpenJFX policies, etc. I also hope to be a bit more
>>> responsive over the coming days / weeks than I have been for the last 3-4
>>> weeks. Getting the standalone OpenJFX working and removing JavaFX from the
>>> JDK was quite time consuming as you can probably imagine.
>>>
>>> If you have any general comments or questions about any of this, please
>>> reply to this thread. We may want to split out more detailed discussions
>>> into their own thread to make it easier to follow.
>>>
>>> -- Kevin
>>>
>>> [1] http://jdk.java.net/openjfx/
>>>
>>> [2] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/openjfx-dev/2018-May/
>>> 021856.html
>>> [3] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8202368
>>>
>>>
>


-- 
Michael Ennen

Re: OpenJFX status update

[Kevin Rushforth]

On 5/16/2018 11:54 AM, Nir Lisker wrote:
What will happen to the JavaDocs? Will they be removed from the EA 
docs and upon release from the release docs?


Correct. The JDK 11 docs will no longer include JavaFX modules and 
classes. We will need to host separate docs for JavaFX.


-- Kevin

Re: OpenJFX status update

[Kevin Rushforth]

On 5/16/2018 10:49 AM, Ty Young wrote:

That one, as mentioned in the wiki build guide. I get an immediate 
build fail(see: https://pastebin.com/geR4LLMm). The JDK works just 
fine: I can set it as the default JDK, run Netbeans, set the project 
source to 11, and my application builds just fine.


Ah, I see. You didn't say what version of gradle or JDK you were using, 
but this looks like a known problem in trying to run gradle with JDK 11. 
See:


https://github.com/gradle/gradle/issues/4860
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8199069

This is marked as fixed in gradle 4.8-rc1, but I haven't confirmed this.

And could the new standalone modules be integrated with the source 
code somehow so that a JDK without JavaFX support can be compiled?


Not sure what you mean, but you can use an OpenJDK without modules + 
the JavaFX standalone modules to build and run your program.





It's an option, sure. My problem with it is that it creates so much 
unnecessary disk usage because each bundled application requires it's 
own copy of JavaFX. If you had 10 standalone JavaFX applications it 
would be 1GB easily if they where all modular projects, which are 
around 106MB for me. Creating an app bundle using classpath is around 
200MB(post JDK 8 was 250+ IIRC).



One option for you would be to use jlink to create a jre image that 
includes the javafx modules. This week's openjfx-11-ea+14 build will 
have a jmods bundle that you can use for this purpose.



As I wrote before and am still having issues with, after a 
successful first compile, JavaFX no longer compiles in Arch Linux 
for me. Any attempt to do so results in a bunch of warning 
messages(see: https://pastebin.com/rJqu7Nws) which cause the build 
to fail due to warnings being treated as errors(Should they even be 
ignored?). In addition. I'm now getting a GCC warning about XIMProc 
returning an int when it should return void (*). I don't know C or 
the native APIs so right now I'm at a loss of what to do besides 
trying to compile on another distro - which is something I *really* 
would prefer not to have to do.


What gcc version are you using? And what Linux distro?



8.1.0 and Arch Linux(Antergos which is basically Arch Linux).



That's not a distro I'm familiar with, but it may or may not be related 
to the issue you are seeing. The gcc errors may be related to compiling 
with a more-strict 8.1 compiler; we have tested with up to gcc 7.3, but 
nothing newer than that. A quick look suggests that we will need some 
way to suppress that warning. For now, you can modify 
buildSrc/linux.gradle and remove the "-Werror" flag from 
LINUX.glass.glassgtk2.ccFlags (ditto for gtk3).


-- Kevin






-- Kevin

Re: OpenJFX status update

[Nir Lisker]

What will happen to the JavaDocs? Will they be removed from the EA docs and
upon release from the release docs?

- Nir

On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 12:59 AM, Kevin Rushforth <
kevin.rushfo...@oracle.com> wrote:

> I wanted to update you on the progress of the last couple weeks on the
> OpenJFX project:
>
> 1. As mentioned last week, we now have EA builds of OpenJFX 11 on java.net
> [1]. We intend to update this roughly weekly. Currently the build numbers
> match the corresponding JDK build number, but that will not necessarily be
> the case going forward, so don't assume that they are in sync.
>
> 2. Barring any build or staging issues, this week's OpenJFX 11 EA build
> will include the jmods as mentioned earlier [2] [3]
>
> 3. JavaFX has been removed from JDK 11 as of this week. Starting with
> jdk-11+14, early access builds of JDK 11 will not include JavaFX.
>
> 4. After jdk-11+14 is posted on java.net, and FX is no longer included in
> JDK 11, we will start using openjfx-11 as the fix version in JBS to
> distinguish it from JDK 11. We still expect to do a release of JavaFX 11
> around the same time as JDK 11, but using a different release number will
> help track the actual content of JavaFX 11 separately from JDK 11.
>
> 5. Once this settles down, possibly later this week, I hope to restart the
> discussion about OpenJFX policies, etc. I also hope to be a bit more
> responsive over the coming days / weeks than I have been for the last 3-4
> weeks. Getting the standalone OpenJFX working and removing JavaFX from the
> JDK was quite time consuming as you can probably imagine.
>
> If you have any general comments or questions about any of this, please
> reply to this thread. We may want to split out more detailed discussions
> into their own thread to make it easier to follow.
>
> -- Kevin
>
> [1] http://jdk.java.net/openjfx/
>
> [2] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/openjfx-dev/2018-May/
> 021856.html
> [3] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8202368
>
>

Re: OpenJFX status update

[Alan Snyder]

That sounds like a good idea.

  Alan


> On May 16, 2018, at 10:08 AM, Kevin Rushforth  
> wrote:
> 
> The javapackager was removed from the Oracle JDK along with JavaFX (and has 
> never been part of OpenJDK). It isn't included with the standalone JavaFX 
> bundles, and doesn't really fit in a standalone FX release.
> 
> We are looking at the possibility of providing a replacement packaging tool 
> in OpenJDK.
> 
> -- Kevin
> 
> On 5/15/2018 3:16 PM, Alan Snyder wrote:
>> Where does java packager fit in this?
>> 
>> 
>>> On May 15, 2018, at 2:59 PM, Kevin Rushforth  
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I wanted to update you on the progress of the last couple weeks on the 
>>> OpenJFX project:
>>> 
>>> 1. As mentioned last week, we now have EA builds of OpenJFX 11 on java.net 
>>> [1]. We intend to update this roughly weekly. Currently the build numbers 
>>> match the corresponding JDK build number, but that will not necessarily be 
>>> the case going forward, so don't assume that they are in sync.
>>> 
>>> 2. Barring any build or staging issues, this week's OpenJFX 11 EA build 
>>> will include the jmods as mentioned earlier [2] [3]
>>> 
>>> 3. JavaFX has been removed from JDK 11 as of this week. Starting with 
>>> jdk-11+14, early access builds of JDK 11 will not include JavaFX.
>>> 
>>> 4. After jdk-11+14 is posted on java.net, and FX is no longer included in 
>>> JDK 11, we will start using openjfx-11 as the fix version in JBS to 
>>> distinguish it from JDK 11. We still expect to do a release of JavaFX 11 
>>> around the same time as JDK 11, but using a different release number will 
>>> help track the actual content of JavaFX 11 separately from JDK 11.
>>> 
>>> 5. Once this settles down, possibly later this week, I hope to restart the 
>>> discussion about OpenJFX policies, etc. I also hope to be a bit more 
>>> responsive over the coming days / weeks than I have been for the last 3-4 
>>> weeks. Getting the standalone OpenJFX working and removing JavaFX from the 
>>> JDK was quite time consuming as you can probably imagine.
>>> 
>>> If you have any general comments or questions about any of this, please 
>>> reply to this thread. We may want to split out more detailed discussions 
>>> into their own thread to make it easier to follow.
>>> 
>>> -- Kevin
>>> 
>>> [1] http://jdk.java.net/openjfx/
>>> 
>>> [2] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/openjfx-dev/2018-May/021856.html
>>> [3] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8202368
>>> 
> 

Re: OpenJFX status update

[Ty Young]

On 05/16/2018 10:42 AM, Kevin Rushforth wrote:



On 5/15/2018 11:57 PM, Ty Young wrote:


3. JavaFX has been removed from JDK 11 as of this week. Starting 
with jdk-11+14, early access builds of JDK 11 will not include JavaFX.


I'm not sure if it's intentional or perhaps a bug on my end, but I 
cannot compile JavaFX without Oracle JDK(9 or 10). Attempting to do 
so with a self compiled JDK with JavaFX support results in a build 
fail while doing it without JavaFX entirely results in a fail due to 
Observable classes being missing.


Is Oracle JDK a requirement for building JavaFX currently or is this 
just some weird bug with my compiled JDK?


This is likely something on your end, since we build the standalone 
JavaFX using OpenJDK 10. What repo are you building from? The correct 
repo is:


http://hg.openjdk.java.net/openjfx/jfx-dev/rt


That one, as mentioned in the wiki build guide. I get an immediate build 
fail(see: https://pastebin.com/geR4LLMm). The JDK works just fine: I can 
set it as the default JDK, run Netbeans, set the project source to 11, 
and my application builds just fine.




And could the new standalone modules be integrated with the source 
code somehow so that a JDK without JavaFX support can be compiled?


Not sure what you mean, but you can use an OpenJDK without modules + 
the JavaFX standalone modules to build and run your program.





It's an option, sure. My problem with it is that it creates so much 
unnecessary disk usage because each bundled application requires it's 
own copy of JavaFX. If you had 10 standalone JavaFX applications it 
would be 1GB easily if they where all modular projects, which are around 
106MB for me. Creating an app bundle using classpath is around 
200MB(post JDK 8 was 250+ IIRC).


As I wrote before and am still having issues with, after a successful 
first compile, JavaFX no longer compiles in Arch Linux for me. Any 
attempt to do so results in a bunch of warning messages(see: 
https://pastebin.com/rJqu7Nws) which cause the build to fail due to 
warnings being treated as errors(Should they even be ignored?). In 
addition. I'm now getting a GCC warning about XIMProc returning an 
int when it should return void (*). I don't know C or the native APIs 
so right now I'm at a loss of what to do besides trying to compile on 
another distro - which is something I *really* would prefer not to 
have to do.


What gcc version are you using? And what Linux distro?



8.1.0 and Arch Linux(Antergos which is basically Arch Linux).



-- Kevin

Re: OpenJFX status update

[Kevin Rushforth]

The javapackager was removed from the Oracle JDK along with JavaFX (and 
has never been part of OpenJDK). It isn't included with the standalone 
JavaFX bundles, and doesn't really fit in a standalone FX release.


We are looking at the possibility of providing a replacement packaging 
tool in OpenJDK.


-- Kevin

On 5/15/2018 3:16 PM, Alan Snyder wrote:

Where does java packager fit in this?



On May 15, 2018, at 2:59 PM, Kevin Rushforth  wrote:

I wanted to update you on the progress of the last couple weeks on the OpenJFX 
project:

1. As mentioned last week, we now have EA builds of OpenJFX 11 on java.net [1]. 
We intend to update this roughly weekly. Currently the build numbers match the 
corresponding JDK build number, but that will not necessarily be the case going 
forward, so don't assume that they are in sync.

2. Barring any build or staging issues, this week's OpenJFX 11 EA build will 
include the jmods as mentioned earlier [2] [3]

3. JavaFX has been removed from JDK 11 as of this week. Starting with 
jdk-11+14, early access builds of JDK 11 will not include JavaFX.

4. After jdk-11+14 is posted on java.net, and FX is no longer included in JDK 
11, we will start using openjfx-11 as the fix version in JBS to distinguish it 
from JDK 11. We still expect to do a release of JavaFX 11 around the same time 
as JDK 11, but using a different release number will help track the actual 
content of JavaFX 11 separately from JDK 11.

5. Once this settles down, possibly later this week, I hope to restart the 
discussion about OpenJFX policies, etc. I also hope to be a bit more responsive 
over the coming days / weeks than I have been for the last 3-4 weeks. Getting 
the standalone OpenJFX working and removing JavaFX from the JDK was quite time 
consuming as you can probably imagine.

If you have any general comments or questions about any of this, please reply 
to this thread. We may want to split out more detailed discussions into their 
own thread to make it easier to follow.

-- Kevin

[1] http://jdk.java.net/openjfx/

[2] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/openjfx-dev/2018-May/021856.html
[3] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8202368

Re: OpenJFX status update

[Kevin Rushforth]

On 5/15/2018 11:57 PM, Ty Young wrote:


3. JavaFX has been removed from JDK 11 as of this week. Starting with 
jdk-11+14, early access builds of JDK 11 will not include JavaFX.


I'm not sure if it's intentional or perhaps a bug on my end, but I 
cannot compile JavaFX without Oracle JDK(9 or 10). Attempting to do so 
with a self compiled JDK with JavaFX support results in a build fail 
while doing it without JavaFX entirely results in a fail due to 
Observable classes being missing.


Is Oracle JDK a requirement for building JavaFX currently or is this 
just some weird bug with my compiled JDK?


This is likely something on your end, since we build the standalone 
JavaFX using OpenJDK 10. What repo are you building from? The correct 
repo is:


http://hg.openjdk.java.net/openjfx/jfx-dev/rt

And could the new standalone modules be integrated with the source 
code somehow so that a JDK without JavaFX support can be compiled?


Not sure what you mean, but you can use an OpenJDK without modules + the 
JavaFX standalone modules to build and run your program.



As I wrote before and am still having issues with, after a successful 
first compile, JavaFX no longer compiles in Arch Linux for me. Any 
attempt to do so results in a bunch of warning messages(see: 
https://pastebin.com/rJqu7Nws) which cause the build to fail due to 
warnings being treated as errors(Should they even be ignored?). In 
addition. I'm now getting a GCC warning about XIMProc returning an int 
when it should return void (*). I don't know C or the native APIs so 
right now I'm at a loss of what to do besides trying to compile on 
another distro - which is something I *really* would prefer not to 
have to do.


What gcc version are you using? And what Linux distro?

-- Kevin

Re: OpenJFX status update

[Ty Young]

3. JavaFX has been removed from JDK 11 as of this week. Starting with 
jdk-11+14, early access builds of JDK 11 will not include JavaFX.


4. After jdk-11+14 is posted on java.net, and FX is no longer included 
in JDK 11, we will start using openjfx-11 as the fix version in JBS to 
distinguish it from JDK 11. We still expect to do a release of JavaFX 
11 around the same time as JDK 11, but using a different release 
number will help track the actual content of JavaFX 11 separately from 
JDK 11.




I'm not sure if it's intentional or perhaps a bug on my end, but I 
cannot compile JavaFX without Oracle JDK(9 or 10). Attempting to do so 
with a self compiled JDK with JavaFX support results in a build fail 
while doing it without JavaFX entirely results in a fail due to 
Observable classes being missing.


Is Oracle JDK a requirement for building JavaFX currently or is this 
just some weird bug with my compiled JDK?


And could the new standalone modules be integrated with the source code 
somehow so that a JDK without JavaFX support can be compiled?


5. Once this settles down, possibly later this week, I hope to restart 
the discussion about OpenJFX policies, etc. I also hope to be a bit 
more responsive over the coming days / weeks than I have been for the 
last 3-4 weeks. Getting the standalone OpenJFX working and removing 
JavaFX from the JDK was quite time consuming as you can probably imagine.


If you have any general comments or questions about any of this, 
please reply to this thread. We may want to split out more detailed 
discussions into their own thread to make it easier to follow.


As I wrote before and am still having issues with, after a successful 
first compile, JavaFX no longer compiles in Arch Linux for me. Any 
attempt to do so results in a bunch of warning messages(see: 
https://pastebin.com/rJqu7Nws) which cause the build to fail due to 
warnings being treated as errors(Should they even be ignored?). In 
addition. I'm now getting a GCC warning about XIMProc returning an int 
when it should return void (*). I don't know C or the native APIs so 
right now I'm at a loss of what to do besides trying to compile on 
another distro - which is something I *really* would prefer not to have 
to do.

Re: OpenJFX status update

[Alan Snyder]

Where does java packager fit in this?


> On May 15, 2018, at 2:59 PM, Kevin Rushforth  
> wrote:
> 
> I wanted to update you on the progress of the last couple weeks on the 
> OpenJFX project:
> 
> 1. As mentioned last week, we now have EA builds of OpenJFX 11 on java.net 
> [1]. We intend to update this roughly weekly. Currently the build numbers 
> match the corresponding JDK build number, but that will not necessarily be 
> the case going forward, so don't assume that they are in sync.
> 
> 2. Barring any build or staging issues, this week's OpenJFX 11 EA build will 
> include the jmods as mentioned earlier [2] [3]
> 
> 3. JavaFX has been removed from JDK 11 as of this week. Starting with 
> jdk-11+14, early access builds of JDK 11 will not include JavaFX.
> 
> 4. After jdk-11+14 is posted on java.net, and FX is no longer included in JDK 
> 11, we will start using openjfx-11 as the fix version in JBS to distinguish 
> it from JDK 11. We still expect to do a release of JavaFX 11 around the same 
> time as JDK 11, but using a different release number will help track the 
> actual content of JavaFX 11 separately from JDK 11.
> 
> 5. Once this settles down, possibly later this week, I hope to restart the 
> discussion about OpenJFX policies, etc. I also hope to be a bit more 
> responsive over the coming days / weeks than I have been for the last 3-4 
> weeks. Getting the standalone OpenJFX working and removing JavaFX from the 
> JDK was quite time consuming as you can probably imagine.
> 
> If you have any general comments or questions about any of this, please reply 
> to this thread. We may want to split out more detailed discussions into their 
> own thread to make it easier to follow.
> 
> -- Kevin
> 
> [1] http://jdk.java.net/openjfx/
> 
> [2] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/openjfx-dev/2018-May/021856.html
> [3] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8202368
>