Why is the windows runtime/sdk only provided as .exe
Tom Schindl
tom.schindl at bestsolution.at
Wed May 9 16:09:29 PDT 2012
So no argument completion, no JavaDoc-Hovers in IDEs!
I decided to buy an OS-X upgrade for my Mac but without offline JavaDoc
using FX inside eclipse is half the fun.
Thanks
Tom
Am 10.05.12 01:02, schrieb Kim Topley:
> As far as I can see, there is no JavaFX API documentation included.
>
> On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 6:58 PM, Kim Topley <kimtopley at gmail.com
> <mailto:kimtopley at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> The code goes to
> /Library/Java/JavaVirtualMachines/1.7.0.jdk/Contents/Home/jre/lib -
> I see jfxrt.jar and the JavaFX DLLs in there. I haven't downloaded
> the Javadoc package yet - I'll post again when I have done so.
>
>
> On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 6:27 PM, Tom Schindl
> <tom.schindl at bestsolution.at <mailto:tom.schindl at bestsolution.at>>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Kevin,
>
> I'm replying here because I think more people who are interested
> in zips
> (e.g. anyone using maven!) are listening here.
>
> So you are stating in the bug that no zips will be provided anymore
> which I think is a very disappointing situation - I will and have to
> accept it.
>
> If you read through the mailing list threads how Richard,
> Jasper, ...
> advised to deploy JavaFX application they always stated that one
> should
> bundle it with the application (probably with the JRE which is a
> no go
> when we talk about Webstart).
>
> Without providing zips you force me to have:
> * Win32
> * Mac OS X > 10.7.0
> * Linux (in future)
>
> to extract the fxjar + native libs to repackage in my custom
> app. I know
> I need them anyways to test, ... but forcing me to do it manually
> instead of simply providing zip downloads is ridiculous (and
> because of
> the licensing stuff I one person in the world would have done
> and wants
> to share it with the rest of us he/she is not allowed).
>
> For me as a tooling vendor your current decision gives me headaches
> because I want and need to support multiple different
> SDK-Install-Styles:
> * Dev Preview install (done through zips with the structure in
> there)
>
> * JDK-7-Installs
> => Not sure how they look like and I'm unable to test because I
> only
> have OS-X 10.6.8
>
> * JDK-6
>
> When we take a look into the future this JDK-Exe install kind of
> thing
> is a deadend road because you'll stop viewing the JDK/JRE as an
> all in
> one thing installable through one .exe because of jigsaw.
>
> Anyways I appreciate that you took a look but I'm not happy with
> it and
> hope I can find a way around it until then I can only point
> people to
> the JIRA entry when they want to use e(fx)clipse os OS-X.
>
> Can anyone here tell me how the OS-X JDK-7-Installation
> structure looks
> like? Where am I supposed to find:
> * the javafxrt.jar
> * the dlls
> * the fx-javadoc
>
> Tom
>
> Am 08.05.12 15:43, schrieb Tom Schindl:
> > Haveing the SDK-zips will solve all my current problems.
> Thanks for taking a Look.
> >
> > Tom
> >
> > Von meinem iPhone gesendet
> >
> > Am 08.05.2012 um 15:40 schrieb Kevin Rushforth
> <kevin.rushforth at oracle.com <mailto:kevin.rushforth at oracle.com>>:
> >
> >> Hi Tom,
> >>
> >> I just looked and you are right...only see the .exe files
> were released for 2.1. I will check into this and get back to you.
> >>
> >> The Mac issue will be trickier since we don't have any tested
> / supported standalone bundles of JavaFX 2.1 on Mac. As a
> released product JavaFX 2.1 for Mac is only available as part of
> JDK 7u4.
> >>
> >> -- Kevin
> >>
> >>
> >> Tom Schindl wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Kevin - can you take a look at this once more? Since the 2.1
> release the
> >>> zips for the SDKs are not available anymore!
> >>>
> >>> One can only download the one for 2.2 so it looks like the
> dev-release
> >>> site was adjusted but the GA site not.
> >>>
> >>> For those of use doing cross platform development and
> packaging JavaFX
> >>> with their apps getting geting the releases as zips is
> something really
> >>> important.
> >>>
> >>> Sidenote: Even worse because I'm still on OS-X 10.6.8 I
> can't even
> >>> install JavaFX because the JDK-7 release requires at least
> 10.7.0 (I
> >>> know you are not support JavaFX prior to JDK 7)
> >>>
> >>> Thanks
> >>>
> >>> Tom
> >>>
> >>> Am 04.01.12 17:37, schrieb Kevin Rushforth:
> >>>
> >>>> Oh, maybe we don't actually release the SDK on the public
> web page
> >>>> either (I knew we didn't release the runtime as a zip since
> we don't
> >>>> even generate it internally).
> >>>>
> >>>> -- Kevin
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Tom Schindl wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Hi Kevin,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Well maybe I'm blind but for win32 the there is NO zip
> available from
> >>>>> this page [1].
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The only thing available currently as a zip is the OS-X
> SDK version
> >>>>> which misses the win32 native libs not? I'll file a JIRA.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> [1]http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javafx/downloads/devpreview-1429449.html
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Am 04.01.12 17:22, schrieb Kevin Rushforth:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Good question. The SDK is available as both an installer
> and a zip, and
> >>>>>> we could consider make the runtime available as a zip
> file as well, so
> >>>>>> please file a JIRA feature request for this.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> As for your other question, it is not currently possible
> to have 2.0.2
> >>>>>> and 2.1 instaled side-by-side.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> -- Kevin
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Tom Schindl wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Now that since 2.0.2 (and also 2.1) are redistributeable
> it might make
> >>>>>>> sense to provide them also as simple ZIP-Files.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I find it odd that if I want to package JavaFX with my
> product that I
> >>>>>>> first have to install something only my system, navigate
> to the install
> >>>>>>> dir and copy over the stuff my own project directory.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Is it BTW possible to have 2.1 and 2.0.2 installed next
> to each other? I
> >>>>>>> guess not which makes it hard to test with both versions
> on the same
> >>>>>>> system, which would be made much more easy if provided
> as simple
> >>>>>>> ZIP-Files.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Would you mind providing JavaFX 2.1 binaries (and maybe
> also > 2.0.2) as
> >>>>>>> a simple zip-File like you do it with 2.1 OS-X ones?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Tom
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
>
>
> --
> B e s t S o l u t i o n . a t EDV
> Systemhaus GmbH
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> tom schindl geschäftsführer/CEO
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> eduard-bodem-gasse 5-7/1 A-6020 innsbruck fax ++43
> 512 935833 <tel:%2B%2B43%20512%20935833>
> http://www.BestSolution.at phone ++43
> 512 935834 <tel:%2B%2B43%20512%20935834>
>
>
>
--
B e s t S o l u t i o n . a t EDV Systemhaus GmbH
------------------------------------------------------------------------
tom schindl geschäftsführer/CEO
------------------------------------------------------------------------
eduard-bodem-gasse 5-7/1 A-6020 innsbruck fax ++43 512 935833
http://www.BestSolution.at phone ++43 512 935834
More information about the openjfx-dev
mailing list