<!DOCTYPE html><html><head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 9/28/2025 6:52 AM, Johan Vos wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:CABxFH2FaLh32UT9iSE4wmwHtYfgMT-19yk5WN3HmrRxuF+vTyQ@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, Sep 27, 2025 at
11:59 PM Kevin Rushforth <<a href="mailto:kevin.rushforth@oracle.com" moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">kevin.rushforth@oracle.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
...
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div> Optionally, it could support linking those modules
into the JDK. I note that is already possible using jlink
on the JMODs produce above, but it could be more
convenient to have support for direct integration.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I think the difference between this project and what is
currently possible using jlink is more than just
convenience.</div>
<div>When using jlink to create a JRE, there is no guarantee
that the modules are built in a consistent approach. Hence,
it is possible to have the core modules built against glibc
2.39 and the javafx modules built against glibc 2.35. </div>
<div>When building everything from the same build tools, we
ensure that the native libraries are very consistent with
each other. It also makes maintenance of OpenJFX easier, as
we regularly update the minimum requirements of some
dependencies because they are updated in OpenJDK.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
What I meant is that you could use this project to separately build
the JDK and then JavaFX JMODs using the exact same toolchains and
then use jlink to create a JDK with JavaFX modules. In that way, you
would ensure consistency in building the native libs. However, as
you point out below...<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:CABxFH2FaLh32UT9iSE4wmwHtYfgMT-19yk5WN3HmrRxuF+vTyQ@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container">
<div>The additional jlink step that is currently needed if one
wants to distribute a JRE with JavaFX requires "unpacking" 2
projects, mixing some artifacts, and repackaging it. While
the tools do this is are really great, it is still more
plumbing work than the case where the `make images` is used
when compiling the JDK and where the JavaFX modules are
immediately part of the image.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Yes, this is definitely easier and seems well worth supporting as a
better way to build a JDK that includes JavaFX modules. And in
addition to the repackaging, it would need to be signed (and on
macOS notarized) again.<br>
<br>
-- Kevin<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>