Remove JavaFX JPMS enforcement

Mon Apr 20 20:33:58 UTC 2020

JFXtras is split in many modules as well, the question is if it really is that important to do. Splitting up in jars -so you don't need to include what is not needed- is good, but whether they need to be modules...

The way I see it is that JPMS requires the same amount of effort as OSGi for example, but does not provide the same functionality (most importantly class load separation) and thus is simply less worthwhile. So either 'we' start adding that last piece (I recently learned there is such a thing as JPMS layers, which provides for that), or it probably will stay a Java core thing only.

Regards, Tom

On 20-4-2020 20:18, Bruno Borges wrote:
> I do wonder why isn't JavaFX in a single module, like Swing?
>
> <https://docs.oracle.com/javase/10/docs/api/java.desktop-summary.html>
> For Java developers to build Swing apps, all they need is a "requires
> java.desktop".
>
> But for JavaFX, there are multiple modules.
>
> ---
> *Bruno Borges*
> brunoborges.io
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 10:36 AM Michael Paus <mp at jugs.org> wrote:
>
>> Oh I see. You  are obviously not familiar with the fact that the JDK has
>> a built-in test
>> which checks whether the JavaFX graphics module is on the module path
>> when you
>> try to launch an application main class which is derived from the JavaFX
>> Application class.
>> If you try this and the graphics module is not on the module path the
>> launch will fail
>> with an error message. That's the only reason why JavaFX programs cannot
>> be launched
>> completely on the classpath and that's where all the trouble starts. If
>> you circumvent this
>> test with the trick, I have mentioned before, everything becomes nice
>> and easy.
>>
>> So for me there are only two questions.
>> 1. Is there any proof of a technical reason why JavaFX could not run
>> correctly on the classpath?
>> 2. If there is no such reason, then why do we torture all the newbies
>> with the "intricacies" of the
>> module system instead of just removing this barrier?
>>
>> As I said before, I have not found any such problem in all the time
>> since JavaFX was separated
>> from the JDK, so this test seems to be quite artificial to me but of
>> course I may be wrong. That's
>> why I asked here.
>>
>> Am 20.04.20 um 17:25 schrieb Ty Young:
>>> I'm a bit confused here. if you don't want JPMS then you should be
>>> able to run everything on the classpath like normal. Netbeans at least
>>> doesn't force modules wtih Maven. Or is reflection disabled on
>>> classpath as of Java 9 too unless you have a module-info?
>>>
>>>
>>>> Michael
>>>>
>>>> Am 18.04.20 um 12:58 schrieb Ty Young:
>>>>> On 4/18/20 5:01 AM, Michael Paus wrote:
>>>>>> Getting started with JavaFX is made overly complicated by the fact
>>>>>> that the use of the
>>>>>> module system is enforced by some code in the JDK. Especially for
>>>>>> beginners, who just
>>>>>> want to get some small program running, this is almost always a big
>>>>>> source of frustration.
>>>>>> It is not very good marketing for JavaFX to make these initial
>>>>>> steps such a pain. If you
>>>>>> need some evidence for this statement, then just follow JavaFX on
>>>>>> Stackoverflow or similar
>>>>>> sites (and also this mailing list). Almost every day you can read
>>>>>> frustrated posts from
>>>>>> helpless people who would just like to get some JavaFX project
>>>>>> running but are failing
>>>>>> because they get lost in the module system jungle.
>>>>>
>>>>> Speaking as a long time JavaFX user(literally since Java 8), I have
>>>>> mostly disagree that the JPMS is hurting JavaFX.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That said, I don't think the frustration is misplaced. What you say
>>>>> is true(Netbeans mailing list is fill of JavaFX issues) and the end
>>>>> user is *NOT* to be blamed here.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Rather, I think what's to blame is poor documentation, JavaFX
>>>>> requiring absurd runtime module VM arguments, and  poor/buggy IDE
>>>>> support.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Starting with documentation, JavaFX uses reflection for things like
>>>>> TableView(everyone's favorite) and CSS style sheets. While this may
>>>>> be obvious for people who are more experienced, those who are not
>>>>> may be very confused when they get an onslaught of error messages
>>>>> regarding reflection. Better documentation on what requires
>>>>> reflection, why, and how to enable it would be useful.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Likewise, the notice about having to include javafx.graphics to the
>>>>> runtime module arguments here:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://openjfx.io/openjfx-docs/#IDE-NetBeans
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Apply to Maven as well, but it's under Ant for some reason. I don't
>>>>> know what was changed in JavaFX 14 that now suddenly requires a
>>>>> runtime VM argument, but it's a PITA and BS. End users are going to
>>>>> struggle with this, and it prevents JavaFX runtime from being purely
>>>>> managed by Maven. No other JavaFX version requires this, so it's
>>>>> mind boggling that all of a sudden JavaFX needs this.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Poor/buggy IDE support is really the big one here. I don't know
>>>>> about other IDEs but Netbeans DOES NOT provide a project template
>>>>> for creating a JavaFX application with setup dependencies. Netbeans,
>>>>> when setup with a Maven project, allows you to select an entire
>>>>> project(pom) rather than the individual dependencies(jar) which
>>>>> doesn't work. What you search for also matters: if you search for
>>>>> "JavaFX" you will get the wrong search results. You need to search
>>>>> for "openjfx" which can be confusing.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyway, yeah, it's a PITA. There is also an issue with Ant based
>>>>> projects and Netbeans because JavaFX puts its src.zip in a folder
>>>>> that is supposed to only include the runtime library that has
>>>>> existed for years(literally a 1 line fix too). No one really uses
>>>>> Ant anymore so it's probably not a big deal now but yeah, getting
>>>>> JavaFX working hasn't been "include and done" when it could
>>>>> potentially be that way.
>>>>>
>>
>>