OpenJFX status update

[Kevin Rushforth]

Yes, the source code for javapackager is fully open source.

-- Kevin


On 5/16/2018 1:05 PM, Michael Ennen wrote:
> Is the source code for javapackager fully open source?
>
> Thanks.
>
> On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 10:08 AM, Kevin Rushforth 
> <kevin.rushforth at oracle.com <mailto:kevin.rushforth at oracle.com>> wrote:
>
>     The javapackager was removed from the Oracle JDK along with JavaFX
>     (and has never been part of OpenJDK). It isn't included with the
>     standalone JavaFX bundles, and doesn't really fit in a standalone
>     FX release.
>
>     We are looking at the possibility of providing a replacement
>     packaging tool in OpenJDK.
>
>     -- Kevin
>
>
>     On 5/15/2018 3:16 PM, Alan Snyder wrote:
>
>         Where does java packager fit in this?
>
>
>             On May 15, 2018, at 2:59 PM, Kevin Rushforth
>             <kevin.rushforth at oracle.com
>             <mailto:kevin.rushforth at oracle.com>> wrote:
>
>             I wanted to update you on the progress of the last couple
>             weeks on the OpenJFX project:
>
>             1. As mentioned last week, we now have EA builds of
>             OpenJFX 11 on java.net <http://java.net> [1]. We intend to
>             update this roughly weekly. Currently the build numbers
>             match the corresponding JDK build number, but that will
>             not necessarily be the case going forward, so don't assume
>             that they are in sync.
>
>             2. Barring any build or staging issues, this week's
>             OpenJFX 11 EA build will include the jmods as mentioned
>             earlier [2] [3]
>
>             3. JavaFX has been removed from JDK 11 as of this week.
>             Starting with jdk-11+14, early access builds of JDK 11
>             will not include JavaFX.
>
>             4. After jdk-11+14 is posted on java.net
>             <http://java.net>, and FX is no longer included in JDK 11,
>             we will start using openjfx-11 as the fix version in JBS
>             to distinguish it from JDK 11. We still expect to do a
>             release of JavaFX 11 around the same time as JDK 11, but
>             using a different release number will help track the
>             actual content of JavaFX 11 separately from JDK 11.
>
>             5. Once this settles down, possibly later this week, I
>             hope to restart the discussion about OpenJFX policies,
>             etc. I also hope to be a bit more responsive over the
>             coming days / weeks than I have been for the last 3-4
>             weeks. Getting the standalone OpenJFX working and removing
>             JavaFX from the JDK was quite time consuming as you can
>             probably imagine.
>
>             If you have any general comments or questions about any of
>             this, please reply to this thread. We may want to split
>             out more detailed discussions into their own thread to
>             make it easier to follow.
>
>             -- Kevin
>
>             [1] http://jdk.java.net/openjfx/
>
>             [2]
>             http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/openjfx-dev/2018-May/021856.html
>             <http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/openjfx-dev/2018-May/021856.html>
>             [3] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8202368
>             <https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8202368>
>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Michael Ennen