The "javafx might not be present" problem

[Kevin Rushforth]

> There is a big difference because you just don't have to bundle all these
> other things with the JDK because you can add them later if you need 
> them.
> This is different from the OpenJDK-OpenJFX combo which has to be built
> and distributed together for technical reasons.

We are working to eliminate this dependency, to make it easier for 
OpenJFX to be used with OpenJDK builds that don't already contain 
javafx.* modules.

-- Kevin



Michael Paus wrote:
> Am 09.02.18 um 15:22 schrieb Mario Torre:
>> On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 3:07 PM, Michael Paus <mp at jugs.org> wrote:
>>> Am 09.02.18 um 14:49 schrieb Mario Torre:
>>>> On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 2:29 PM, Mark Raynsford <org.openjdk at io7m.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I suppose what I'm really saying is: When (if ever) can I expect 
>>>>> JavaFX
>>>>> to be present unconditionally with OpenJDK installs? I probably can't
>>>>> migrate to JavaFX until that day...
>>>> JavaFX is not part of the Java specifications for the JDK or its
>>>> runtime, so the presence of the library in any distribution of OpenJDK
>>>> pretty much depends on the vendor distributing you the binaries.
>>>>
>>>> There are some Linux distribution that started packaging a subset of
>>>> OpenJFX (in most cases few notable missing bits are the audio codecs
>>>> and the webview). I don't know if the same libraries will be bundled
>>>> with the GPL binary from Oracle, that's probably a question somebody
>>>> from Oracle may answer.
>>>>
>>>> The only way I can see JavaFX becoming included by default everywhere
>>>> is if it becomes part of the spec.
>>> In practice this is really a pain point and very bad advertising for 
>>> JavaFX.
>>> Who defines that everything Open... can only contain what is 
>>> included in
>>> "the spec"?
>>> Who keeps us from creating a product OpenJDKFX which we define to 
>>> contain
>>> OpenJDK + OpenJFX. I'd like to see a complete and open version of 
>>> Java but
>>> at the moment everybody seems to restrict themselves to only OpenJDK.
>>> Even Oracle at their EA download page deliver the open version of 
>>> the JDK
>>> without JavaFX which I simply don't understand and which makes this 
>>> version
>>> of the JDK completely useless to me.
>> You already have a complete, compliant and open version of Java. The
>> Java spec and the TCK define what is and what is not Java, and it
>> doesn't cover JavaFX.
>>
>> JavaFX can be included by downstream vendors, but that's entirely up
>> to them, in that regard is not different than bundling Tomcat or maven
>> with your JDK.
> There is a big difference because you just don't have to bundle all these
> other things with the JDK because you can add them later if you need 
> them.
> This is different from the OpenJDK-OpenJFX combo which has to be built
> and distributed together for technical reasons.
>
>