Making any theoretical flag available to the deployment side would
entirely miss the point.
Let me be blunt -- sun.misc.Unsafe must die in a fire. It is -- wait
for it -- Unsafe. It must go. Ignore any kind of theoretical rope and
start the path to righteousness _*/now/*_. It is still years until the
end of public updates to JDK 8, so we have /*years */to work this out
properly. But sticking our heads in the collective sands and hoping for
trivial work arounds to Unsafe is not going to work. If you're using
Unsafe, this is the year to explain where the API is broken and get it
straight....
Please help us kill Unsafe, kill Unsafe dead, kill Unsafe right, and do
so as quickly as possible to the ultimate benefit of everyone.
- Don
On 08/04/2015 2:56 PM, Stefan Fuchs wrote:
Hi,
then I can only hope, that this flag is available to webstart
applications.
Webstart applications have no control over the installed jre. In the
past we encountered various bugs in the jre, which required using
internal apis for workarounds.
For example in some releases of Java 7 the swing gui thread did not
start unless hacking internal apis (see
https://javafx-jira.kenai.com/browse/RT-31205 for details). If such an
error occurs again in the future and we are no longer able to hack
around the problem, our only choice to keep our business alive, is to
discourage users from upgrading to newer versions of the jre, exposing
them to security risks.
- Stefan
> it's not strictly JFX-only.
Its not remotely FX only, in fact I could argue FX is not so affected,
as being relatively new it does not have 20 years of accumulation
of people using internal APIs that the larger JDK does, often dating
from
when there were no suitable public APIs. There still remains some
of that with sun.misc.Unsafe as pointed out which will indeed be
inaccessible in modular mode. But the FX list isn't really the place
for that discussion. The jigsaw-dev is the appropriate list. FX
is simply bound by the rules that are set there.
There will be a -XX flag in JDK 9 that jigsaw provides to aid in the
transition.
Also remember FX is open source. You can propose patches !
If there are specific APIs that are missing from FX that are suitable
to be *supported* public APIs then those could be considered here
(this list).
-phil.
On 4/8/2015 9:28 AM, Mike Hearn 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
