I'm in the process of porting an app from Java 8 to Java 11. Just getting it to
run in classpath mode is not that hard anymore; upgrade a bunch of libraries
and you're set.
As an experiment I'm now activating JPMS. Right! What a lot of work! Do you
have any idea how many fairly common libraries not even include an automatic
module name in the manifest? Let alone being full fledged modules. It seems
modules is a threshold a lot of projects see no need to cross. So I figure most
JavaFX projects also run in classic classpath mode, hence that would be the
main usage of the library. Just sayin'
Tom
On 18-4-2020 16:56, Weiqi Gao wrote:
I have built both non-modular and modular JavaFX apps in the past five years,
and I agree that bootstrapping a modular Hello World JavaFX application is not
as trivial as bootstrapping a non-modular one.
The big challenges are related to the JPMS. These challenges are not unique to
JavaFX. They are present in almost all libraries that are going through the
modularization process. (JAXB for example.)
The good news in this regard is that with a combination of tools like Gradle
and its JavaFX plugin and Java Modularity plugin, bootstrapping a modular
JavaFX application has become a non-event that can be done in minutes.
And after that initial setup, further development of the application is almost
the same as for non-modular JavaFX applications, with the occasional need to
add an exports or an opens line to the module-info.java file to allow FXML (or
the dependency injector of your choice, I used Juice and Micronaut in two
different projects to good effect) reflective access to your controller classes.
My IDE of choice, IntelliJ IDEA, works happily with JavaFX.
—
Weiqi Gao
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 18, 2020, at 7:43 AM, Michael Paus <m...@jugs.org> wrote:
Hi,
I would just like to add that many of the problems you have cited would just
vanish if the JPMS
enforcement would be removed from the JDK. There would be no "JavaFX requiring
absurd
runtime module VM arguments" anymore and the IDE integration would just be
straight forward.
JavaFX would become just one more dependency whithout the need for any special
treatment.
I did, however, not say that JavaFX should be de-modularized. For an expert
user who wants
to use the JPMS nothing would change at all.
Michael
Am 18.04.20 um 12:58 schrieb Ty Young:
On 4/18/20 5:01 AM, Michael Paus wrote:
Getting started with JavaFX is made overly complicated by the fact that the use
of the
module system is enforced by some code in the JDK. Especially for beginners,
who just
want to get some small program running, this is almost always a big source of
frustration.
It is not very good marketing for JavaFX to make these initial steps such a
pain. If you
need some evidence for this statement, then just follow JavaFX on Stackoverflow
or similar
sites (and also this mailing list). Almost every day you can read frustrated
posts from
helpless people who would just like to get some JavaFX project running but are
failing
because they get lost in the module system jungle.
Speaking as a long time JavaFX user(literally since Java 8), I have mostly
disagree that the JPMS is hurting JavaFX.
That said, I don't think the frustration is misplaced. What you say is
true(Netbeans mailing list is fill of JavaFX issues) and the end user is *NOT*
to be blamed here.
Rather, I think what's to blame is poor documentation, JavaFX requiring absurd
runtime module VM arguments, and poor/buggy IDE support.
Starting with documentation, JavaFX uses reflection for things like
TableView(everyone's favorite) and CSS style sheets. While this may be obvious
for people who are more experienced, those who are not may be very confused
when they get an onslaught of error messages regarding reflection. Better
documentation on what requires reflection, why, and how to enable it would be
useful.
Likewise, the notice about having to include javafx.graphics to the runtime
module arguments here:
https://openjfx.io/openjfx-docs/#IDE-NetBeans
Apply to Maven as well, but it's under Ant for some reason. I don't know what
was changed in JavaFX 14 that now suddenly requires a runtime VM argument, but
it's a PITA and BS. End users are going to struggle with this, and it prevents
JavaFX runtime from being purely managed by Maven. No other JavaFX version
requires this, so it's mind boggling that all of a sudden JavaFX needs this.
Poor/buggy IDE support is really the big one here. I don't know about other IDEs but Netbeans DOES
NOT provide a project template for creating a JavaFX application with setup dependencies. Netbeans,
when setup with a Maven project, allows you to select an entire project(pom) rather than the
individual dependencies(jar) which doesn't work. What you search for also matters: if you search
for "JavaFX" you will get the wrong search results. You need to search for
"openjfx" which can be confusing.
Anyway, yeah, it's a PITA. There is also an issue with Ant based projects and Netbeans
because JavaFX puts its src.zip in a folder that is supposed to only include the runtime
library that has existed for years(literally a 1 line fix too). No one really uses Ant
anymore so it's probably not a big deal now but yeah, getting JavaFX working hasn't been
"include and done" when it could potentially be that way.
