Rony G. Flatscher
Rony.Flatscher at wu.ac.at
Wed Jan 22 14:04:13 UTC 2020
On 16.01.2020 17:32, Robert Lichtenberger wrote:
> No offence taken and I can fully understand any doubts you have JFX. To
> label it (and any C++ GUI toolkit) unproductive however seems exaggerated
> to me. After all, we've been using JavaFX in production (medical software)
> for years now (using Java 8 and Java 11+ ...).
> JavaFX is (and should be) a GUI Toolkit. Together with a JDK it can be used
> to produce quite nice looking applications that will run on many platforms
> and are not distinguishable from "native" binaries, which (from a UX
> experience) seems to me far better than executable .jar - Files.
> If you have a .jar File you wish to execute, I suggest you continue using
> Java / JavaFX 8. You may try running it with a brand new Liberica JDK (
> https://bell-sw.com/) which still contains JavaFX within the JDK although
> the common consensus is that JavaFX should these days really be separated
> from the JDK.
Ah, that is interesting, thank you for this link! Full (containing all modules and JavaFX) JREs may
be quite useful for different reasons, one is as JRE for different types of (e.g. server
based/servlet like) programs but also for Java script engines that wish to use JavaFX for their GUI
needs and are dependent on its presence in the JRE.
More information about the openjfx-discuss