If there are FX APIs that are currently private that folks think should be public, or that are currently necessary to implement a work-around for another bug, please make sure there is a Jira issue filed for this.
We’ll try to address this for JDK 9 to mitigate this, but everyone should understand that as part of Jigsaw it’s expected that ALL private APIs will become unavailable in Java. <http://www.oracle.com/commitment> <http://www.oracle.com/commitment> > On Apr 8, 2015, at 9:28 AM, Mike Hearn <m...@plan99.net> wrote: > > sed -i 's/private/public/g' ;) > > The whole notion of a strongly enforced private keyword is IMHO dumb when > not using sandboxing. The number of gross hacks that occur in an attempt to > work around overly strict enforcement of this stuff is crazy. The D > compiler has a special flag that disables visibility enforcement when > compiling unit tests, and that's a good idea, but why not go all the way > and just make accessing of private state a compiler warning a la deprecated? > > I also need to use private JFX APIs. I think any real JFX app does, way too > much basic stuff relies on it. Heck, the number of popular Java libraries > that depend on sun.misc.Unsafe is huge. If Java 9 stabs us in the back in > this regard then I will just write a simple tool that flips private->public > either at the source level or via bytecode editing, and see what happens :-) > > > On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 6:14 PM, Robert Krüger <krue...@lesspain.de> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I hope this is not too off-topic, because although it came up in a JFX >> context it's not strictly JFX-only. >> >> Someone from our team recently had a chat with a high-ranking regional >> Oracle representative who gave a talk on the state of JFX. Our guy >> explained our situation (evaluating JFX to migrate our swing-based product, >> feeling it's in principle the right technology but still having >> show-stopping limitations like RT-36215) and the Oracle guy offered to >> relay our concrete questions to the right people, which he did. >> >> The answer we got contained one thing that really was a bit of a shock and >> I would like someone to either confirm this or clear up a misunderstanding. >> >> The statement was that private APIs will not be available in JDK 9 due to >> modularity restrictions. If that is the case and we no longer have the >> ability to build temporary workarounds using private APIs (which in our >> case is controllable as we ship the JRE with our product), I would probably >> have to stop any development going into the direction of JFX as we will >> probably have to use 9 at some point because many things now scheduled for >> 9 will not get fixed in 8 and we will most likely still need workarounds >> using private API, at least that's what my current experience with JFX >> tells me. >> >> Please tell me that this was a misunderstanding (maybe meant for the >> general case where one does not ship the JRE) or a non-engineering source >> that simply made mistake. >> >> Best regards and thanks in advance, >> >> Robert >>
