If you add javafx-swt.jar to the custom classpath created by the OSGI
container it should work in the same way it does today when you add
jfxswt.jar.
Can you suggest an easy way that I can test this?
-- Kevin
Tom Schindl wrote:
Hi,
I highly doubt this will work in an OSGi-Env like Eclipse (which the 99%) use
case for SWT useage.
The SWT jar is not on the application classpath so how should a module (named
or unnamed) find the SWT classes?
Tom
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 26.05.2016 um 02:43 schrieb Mandy Chung <mandy.ch...@oracle.com>:
On May 25, 2016, at 3:38 PM, Kevin Rushforth <kevin.rushfo...@oracle.com> wrote:
Please review the following:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8131888
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8131888/webrev.00/
This adds support for the javafx.embed.swt package back into the JDK, which
will be delivered as an automatic module in $JAVA_HOME/lib/javafx-swt.jar
(final location is TBD).
The approach to have javafx.swt be an automatic module that can access
org.eclipse.swt.* (that may be from an unnamed module) sounds reasonable. I
wonder what the JAR file should be named - javafx.swt.jar or javafx-swt.jar?
They both have the same module name “javafx.swt”.
I skimmed through the change. There are several System.err.println calls that
I assume are debugging code to be removed. e.g.
FXCanvas.java
247 System.err.println("FXCanvas class successfully initialized”);
294 System.err.println("FXCanvas: FX platform is initlialized”);
PlatformImpl.java
308 System.err.println("FXCanvas: no permission to access JavaFX
internals");
309 ex.printStackTrace();
I reviewed mainly addExportsToFXCanvas and addExportsToFXCanvas methods. Happy
to see StackWalker be useful in this case. The check to compare the class name
with “javafx.embed.swt.FXCanvas” to derermine whether qualified exports should
be added. You can consider checking the caller's module name as a starter. I
know you are planning to look into the integrity check as a follows up.
ModuleHelper.java
57 // ignore
This deserves to be an InternalError. This is temporary until FX is
transitioned to be built with JDK 9.
Otherwise, look fine to me.
Mandy
