javafx.embed.swt.* regarded as JDK internal API by jdeps of jdk9-ea135

[Kevin Rushforth]

Alexander Nyssen wrote:
> Hi Kevin,
>
>> Am 13.09.2016 um 15:42 schrieb Kevin Rushforth 
>> <kevin.rushforth at oracle.com <mailto:kevin.rushforth at oracle.com>>:
>>
>> That seems surprising since javafx.swt is not part of the JDK runtime 
>> image. I suspect that this is either an issue with jdeps itself or 
>> with how you are running jdeps. What was the command line you were using?
>
> I used: for i in */bin; do 
> /Library/Java/JavaVirtualMachines/jdk-9_ea135.jdk/Contents/Home/bin/jdeps 
> -jdkinternals $i; done >> deps.txt

That doesn't show how javafx-swt.jar is being referenced. javafx-swt.jar 
is delivered with the JDK, but is not loaded by default (or at least it 
should not be).


>> As for your second question, the expectation is that javafx.swt will 
>> be added as an automatic (and thus named) module in a layer, but that 
>> still needs to be tested. We currently do all of our own testing by 
>> adding it as an automatic module on the module path as follows:
>>
>>   $ java --module-path $JAVA_HOME/lib/javafx-swt.jar --add-modules 
>> javafx.swt my.pkg.MyApp
>
> I see. Is there a concrete schedule?

If you mean is there a concrete schedule for the Eclipse folks to do the 
work to verify that javafx.swt can be loaded in a layer, I can't comment 
on that, since this work is outside the scope of the JDK. Perhaps Tom 
Schindl can respond?

-- Kevin

>
>>
>> — Kevin
>
> Best Regards,
> Alexander
>
>>
>>
>> Alexander Nyssen wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I used a recent jdeps (from jdk9-ea135) to check the Eclipse GEF 
>>> code base and was astonished to see that all dependencies to 
>>> javafx.embed.swt.* now seem to be regarded as JDK internal API. I 
>>> assume this is just a temporal inconsistency. Therefore, let me ask 
>>> when it is planned to transfer the javafx.swt module into a proper 
>>> named JIGSAW module to resolve this. The Eclipse community relies on 
>>> using the javafx.swt module in an OSGi environment (see 
>>> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=482428), and it would 
>>> certainly be good if conformance tests could be started as early as 
>>> possible.
>>>
>>> Best Regards,
>>> Alexander
>>>
>>>  
>