Ah, good insight! Sounds like a renovation of the Gradle file is not really a move forward then. Cheers! Jesper
May 27, 2025, 21:29 by j...@status6.com: > Hi, Jesper. My comments below are not meant to discourage you entirely from > your plans -- really! :-) -- but rather to help you understand, based on my > own experience, the scope of the work involved. > > On 5/27/25 6:41 AM, Jesper Skov wrote: > >> Would there be interest in reworking the build logic? >> > > Yes, but perhaps more like this: > > Building OpenJFX using JDK > https://johanvos.wordpress.com/2025/02/27/building-openjfx-using-jdk/ > >> All the procedural Gradle in one large file makes it hard to understand the >> build logic. >> > > Indeed. > >> It looks very complex. >> > > It is very complex. > >> And it may be performing below optimum (this is just a conjecture). >> > > Without a doubt. > >> I know that the current build is very obviously working. >> > > Barely. :-) > >> And that there may good reasons to keep it in its current form. >> > > No, not really, except for the "very obviously working" part. > >> But if there is an interest, I would like to make the build more idiomatic >> Gradle. >> > > Personally, I'm done with Gradle for any of my own projects. It's difficult > to pin down precisely the way in which Gradle fails to be a good build > system, but I think Bruce Eckel summarized it best in his article below: > > Jan 2, 2021 - 16 minute read > The Problem with Gradle > https://www.bruceeckel.com/2021/01/02/the-problem-with-gradle/ > >> Changing the build would be an explorative and iterative task. >> > > The JavaFX build system is remarkably complicated. It is based on Gradle but > also uses other build tools such as Apache Maven, Apache Ant, GNU Make, > CMake, Ninja, GNU GCC, Apple Xcode, Microsoft Visual Studio, and even Windows > batch files. It runs on Linux, macOS, and Windows, and supports eight > different hardware architectures (last time I counted). > > Testing requires you to configure and run hundreds (!) of these complex builds > and unit tests on multiple systems under Linux, macOS, and Windows. > > I'm tempted to say that having (almost) reproducible builds in JavaFX would > help in verifying that you're creating the same artifacts before and after, > but there are just so many artifacts to verify. It's not one build that > produces a set of artifacts. Rather, it's multiple builds that produce > multiple sets of artifacts on multiple systems. > >> And I would need to know if there are some non-obvious out-of-tree features >> that need special handling. >> > > Almost everything in it needs special handling. > >> I can understand if you would be wary about this proposal; I may not be able >> to complete the transition from the current to a new build. >> > > I think you're looking at a multi-year project. > > John >
