Building JMC with OpenJDK

[Marcus Hirt]

Excellent Jie! 

Please work with Mario to get the bug created, and get this in!

Kind regards,
Marcus

On 2019-01-24, 17:06, "Jie Kang" <jkang at redhat.com> wrote:

    Hi Marcus, Christoph,
    
    I can confirm that on an F28 system with OpenJDK 8 and without OpenJFX
    the latest revision a88d5b9277ba fails to build due to missing javafx
    packages, even though they are contained in the p2 site
    (releng/third-party/target/plugins) and have a reference in the
    default platform definition (photon).
    
    I believe this is because the pom.xml and/or MANIFEST.MF for the
    module org.openjdk.jmc.javafx.osgi have not been updated to reference
    these. E.g. the pom still has:
    
                        <extraClasspathElements>
                            <dependency>
                                <groupId>sun.jdk</groupId>
                                <artifactId>jfxswt</artifactId>
                                <version>1.8.0</version>
                                <scope>system</scope>
                                <systemPath>${java.home}/lib/jfxswt.jar</systemPath>
                            </dependency>
                        </extraClasspathElements>
    
    which would be a reference that doesn't exist in OpenJDK 8 without
    OpenJFX linked. The MANIFEST.MF also does not specify any
    import-package or require-bundle for the openjfx jars in the p2 site.
    
    I think it would be appropriate to create a bug for this. I would be
    interested in providing a fix so as to contribute a patch to JMC :)
    
    
    In the mean time, if you would like to build with OpenJDK 8, you can
    acquire OpenJFX jars and link them into the JDK. If you are on Fedora
    28+ with OpenJDK 8 (java-1.8.0-openjdk java-1.8.0-openjdk-devel) you
    can install the packages:
    openjfx openjfx-devel java-1.8.0-openjdk-openjfx
    java-1.8.0-openjdk-openjfx-devel
    
    to acquire the OpenJFX jars and have them linked into the system OpenJDK 8.
    
    
    Regards,
    
    
    
    On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 6:19 AM Marcus Hirt <marcus.hirt at oracle.com> wrote:
    >
    > Mario, can you or someone over at Red Hat reproduce this? I assume
    > you're not using an Oracle JDK to build JMC. ;)
    >
    > Kind regards,
    > Marcus
    >
    > On 2019-01-24, 12:14, "Langer, Christoph" <christoph.langer at sap.com> wrote:
    >
    >     Ok, shall I open a ticket for this item then? Can you/would you like to reproduce it on your premises before?
    >
    >     > -----Original Message-----
    >     > From: Marcus Hirt <marcus.hirt at oracle.com>
    >     > Sent: Donnerstag, 24. Januar 2019 12:12
    >     > To: Langer, Christoph <christoph.langer at sap.com>; jmc-
    >     > dev at openjdk.java.net
    >     > Subject: Re: Building JMC with OpenJDK
    >     >
    >     > Hi Christoph,
    >     >
    >     > No, OpenJDK 11 will not work yet. We will have to look into OpenJDK 8.
    >     >
    >     > Kind regards,
    >     > Marcus
    >     >
    >     > On 2019-01-24, 12:04, "Langer, Christoph" <christoph.langer at sap.com>
    >     > wrote:
    >     >
    >     >     Hi Marcus,
    >     >
    >     >     thanks for the quick reply.
    >     >
    >     >     The fix for https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JMC-6358 by Alex
    >     > Mcdonald works for me.
    >     >
    >     >     > JMC should be buildable with OpenJDK 8, and yes, we’ve recently
    >     > switched to
    >     >     > OpenJFX and therefore now require JDK 10 or above for plug-ins
    >     > requiring JavaFX.
    >     >
    >     >     This one I can't confirm. For me, it only works with the Oracle JDK 8. With
    >     > my OpenJDK 8 the build shows these javafx dependency errors.
    >     >
    >     >     > Are you pulling the source from the hg repo or the git mirror? If git, know
    >     >     > that it lags the mercurial repo.
    >     >
    >     >     I'm using this mercurial repo: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jmc/jmc/
    >     >
    >     >     So, should I be able to build with OpenJDK11 (as opposed to the
    >     > documentation that explicitly says it should be JDK 8)?
    >     >
    >     >     Thanks
    >     >     Christoph
    >     >
    >     >
    >     >
    >     >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >