JavaFX 11 maven snapshots - empty jars

[Steve Hruda]

Johan,
hmm but is that not quite the same in case of the classifier? Because I
also have to define a property or static value in case of the classifier.

Kevin,
The same name could b e a problem.
"Module names, like package names, must not conflict. The recommended way
to name a module is to use the reverse-domain-name pattern that has long
been recommended for naming packages. "

http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jigsaw/spec/sotms/#module-declarations

But something like a "javafx.controls.dummy" could help.

Is there a plan to split the really platform dependent stuff (natives) from
the platform independent Code?

Which would causein the end that the javafx.controls.jar would not be empty?

Maybe in that case it makes sense that the empty jar uses the module name
javafx.controls and the platform dependent uses e.g. javafx.controls.windows

Regards,
Steve


Am Fr., 13. Juli 2018 um 17:00 Uhr schrieb Kevin Rushforth <
kevin.rushforth at oracle.com>:

> Would it help Eclipse if instead of an empty jar, the jar contained just
> the module-info.class file? Or will that then cause problems because of
> two .jar files with the same module name?
>
> -- Kevin
>
>
> On 7/13/2018 7:37 AM, Johan Vos wrote:
> > Hi Steve,
> >
> > Yes, that has been considered, but I'm more than happy to re-open the
> > discussion.
> >
> > The problem with javafx-controls-${javafx.platform} as the artifactId is
> > that in that case, the gradle developer is in all cases required to add
> the
> > platform suffix to the dependency, which makes it very hard to manage
> > JavaFX projects via version control, as the dependency file will
> hard-code
> > contain e.g. javafx-controls-linux, where other developers would use
> > javafx-controls-windows
> >
> > - Johan
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 4:30 PM Steve Hruda <steve.hruda at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >> Johan asked me to move the empty jar discussion to the mailing list.
> >>
> >> As I mentioned at GitHub, we did some tests with the published
> SNAPSHOT's
> >> and we had to force an exclude of the empty jars at the dependecies.
> >> Otherwise e.g. Eclipse shows a warning that the module name is instable
> >> because of the "auto-generated" module name in case of the empty jars.
> >>
> >> Thanks at Joeri for explaining the reason. I understand now the reason
> for
> >> the empty jar.
> >>
> https://github.com/javafxports/openjdk-jfx/pull/83#issuecomment-404828804
> >>
> >> I never tried it and I know that it doesn't fit to the familar handling
> of
> >> platform dependent jars...
> >>
> >> Have you thought about it to use the platform variable at the
> artifactId?
> >> Something like:
> >> <artifactId>javafx-controls-${javafx.platform}</artifactId>
> >>
> >> Best Regards,
> >> Steve
> >>
>
>

-- 
Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Steve Hruda