Re: RFR: 8248122: java.base should not handle JavaFX application in a specific way
On Sat, 31 Oct 2020 15:25:13 GMT, Kartik Ohri wrote: > JavaFX is no longer a part of OpenJDK. It makes sense to not treat it > specially in the JDK. Hence, refactoring the Launcher class to remove JavaFX > specific code. > > Further investigation reveals that some JavaFX specific code is also present > in the `javadoc` tool. For instance, > https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/blob/master/src/jdk.javadoc/share/classes/jdk/javadoc/internal/doclets/toolkit/BaseOptions.java#L90-L96 > https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/blob/master/src/jdk.javadoc/share/classes/jdk/javadoc/internal/doclets/toolkit/BaseOptions.java#L347-L353 > I think we should remove this code as well and the related tests for it. Please start a discussion on core-libs-dev before proposing this patch. - PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/978
Re: RFR: 8248122: java.base should not handle JavaFX application in a specific way
On Sat, 31 Oct 2020 15:25:13 GMT, Kartik Ohri wrote: > JavaFX is no longer a part of OpenJDK. It makes sense to not treat it > specially in the JDK. Hence, refactoring the Launcher class to remove JavaFX > specific code. > > Further investigation reveals that some JavaFX specific code is also present > in the `javadoc` tool. For instance, > https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/blob/master/src/jdk.javadoc/share/classes/jdk/javadoc/internal/doclets/toolkit/BaseOptions.java#L90-L96 > https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/blob/master/src/jdk.javadoc/share/classes/jdk/javadoc/internal/doclets/toolkit/BaseOptions.java#L347-L353 > I think we should remove this code as well and the related tests for it. This will cause a regression in behavior. It will break existing JavaFX applications that do not have a main program. It could also break applications that create or use certain JavaFX objects in the class initializer of their JavaFX application. There was [some initial discussion](https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8202553?focusedCommentId=14176584&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-14176584) around doing this as a follow-on to the removal of JavaFX from JDK 11, but if it is to be done, it needs to be discussed first. It would need to be done using a process similar to deprecation-for-removal. We would need to make changes in the JDK and/or JavaFX to warn about this in one release, and then remove it in the following. A CSR would be needed for both steps. I note that while I disagree with the rationale described in [JDK-8248122](https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8248122) for making this change, I am not necessarily opposed to the change itself. - Changes requested by kcr (Author). PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/978
Re: RFR: 8248122: java.base should not handle JavaFX application in a specific way
On Sat, 31 Oct 2020 16:09:18 GMT, Kevin Rushforth wrote: >> JavaFX is no longer a part of OpenJDK. It makes sense to not treat it >> specially in the JDK. Hence, refactoring the Launcher class to remove JavaFX >> specific code. >> >> Further investigation reveals that some JavaFX specific code is also present >> in the `javadoc` tool. For instance, >> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/blob/master/src/jdk.javadoc/share/classes/jdk/javadoc/internal/doclets/toolkit/BaseOptions.java#L90-L96 >> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/blob/master/src/jdk.javadoc/share/classes/jdk/javadoc/internal/doclets/toolkit/BaseOptions.java#L347-L353 >> I think we should remove this code as well and the related tests for it. > > This will cause a regression in behavior. It will break existing JavaFX > applications that do not have a main program. It could also break > applications that create or use certain JavaFX objects in the class > initializer of their JavaFX application. > > There was [some initial > discussion](https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8202553?focusedCommentId=14176584&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-14176584) > around doing this as a follow-on to the removal of JavaFX from JDK 11, but > if it is to be done, it needs to be discussed first. It would need to be done > using a process similar to deprecation-for-removal. We would need to make > changes in the JDK and/or JavaFX to warn about this in one release, and then > remove it in the following. A CSR would be needed for both steps. > > I note that while I disagree with the rationale described in > [JDK-8248122](https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8248122) for making > this change, I am not necessarily opposed to the change itself. This also needs to be discussed on the openjfx-dev mailing list, since it will have behavioral compatibility implications for JavaFX. - PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/978
Re: RFR: 8248122: java.base should not handle JavaFX application in a specific way
On Sat, 31 Oct 2020 16:10:23 GMT, Kevin Rushforth wrote: >> This will cause a regression in behavior. It will break existing JavaFX >> applications that do not have a main program. It could also break >> applications that create or use certain JavaFX objects in the class >> initializer of their JavaFX application. >> >> There was [some initial >> discussion](https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8202553?focusedCommentId=14176584&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-14176584) >> around doing this as a follow-on to the removal of JavaFX from JDK 11, but >> if it is to be done, it needs to be discussed first. It would need to be >> done using a process similar to deprecation-for-removal. We would need to >> make changes in the JDK and/or JavaFX to warn about this in one release, and >> then remove it in the following. A CSR would be needed for both steps. >> >> I note that while I disagree with the rationale described in >> [JDK-8248122](https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8248122) for making >> this change, I am not necessarily opposed to the change itself. > > This also needs to be discussed on the openjfx-dev mailing list, since it > will have behavioral compatibility implications for JavaFX. Indeed this is very much of out the blue and the pre-existence of a bug report discussing this does not mean it has been accepted to be done .. And launcher changes need to be done carefully. I would expect them to come from someone who has a long history of contributions in this area and has had extensive discussions with stakeholders before moving on to code .. - PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/978
Re: RFR: 8248122: java.base should not handle JavaFX application in a specific way
On 10/31/20 8:37 AM, Kartik Ohri wrote: Further investigation reveals that some JavaFX specific code is also present in the `javadoc` tool. For instance, https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/blob/master/src/jdk.javadoc/share/classes/jdk/javadoc/internal/doclets/toolkit/BaseOptions.java#L90-L96 https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/blob/master/src/jdk.javadoc/share/classes/jdk/javadoc/internal/doclets/toolkit/BaseOptions.java#L347-L353 I think we should remove this code as well and the related tests for it. This would need to be discussed on javadoc-dev (at least), but at this time, there are no plans to remove JavaFX support from the javadoc tool. -- Jon
