I think that Oracle people are right. It's more a JDK 9 or jigsaw issue than a JavaFX issue.
Sent from my iPhone > On Apr 8, 2015, at 20:22, Tomas Mikula <tomas.mik...@gmail.com> wrote: > > My concern is that issues with existing workarounds were given lower > priority. Now many workarounds will disappear, but I'm worried that > the priorities will not be reconsidered. > > I think part of the problem is the fact that Java does not have a good > way of marking an API as experimental. Anything public can never > change, so JDK developers don't make things public if they are not > quite happy with the API yet, even though some bits would be useful > for others. As a consequence, they get no or very little feedback on a > private API, thus slowing the progress towards the non-experimental > API even more. Sure, experimental functionality could still be dropped > at any time, but that is not happening here. The functionality > remains, it is just going to be hidden. > > Robert makes a good point that designing a stable API for something > that is currently private and possibly ugly is much more work than > pulling ad-hoc hacks with the experimental API. I believe Jira issues > are mostly there, I'm just skeptical that all of the issues currently > targeted for 9 will actually be resolved in 9. > >> On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 1:23 PM, Robert Krüger <krue...@lesspain.de> wrote: >> OK, while I wrote this, all the other replies came in. So I see that your >> recommendation for the cases I mentioned is then to patch OpenJDK and >> submit Jira issues. Fair enough. >> >> Regarding Jira issues, we are already doing that. Regarding code >> contribution, this is a different thing, because in many cases a hack to >> expose something that should be there is quick but designing a consistent >> API that exposes the missing things is often something that requires a >> different qualification. >> >> >>>
