Re: RFR: 8248122: java.base should not handle JavaFX application in a specific way

2020-12-28 Thread Jonathan Gibbons
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

Withdrawn: 8248122: java.base should not handle JavaFX application in a specific way

2020-12-26 Thread Kartik Ohri
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

Re: RFR: 8248122: java.base should not handle JavaFX application in a specific way

2020-10-31 Thread Phil Race
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 thei

Re: 8248122: java.base should not handle JavaFX application in a specific way

2020-10-31 Thread Kevin Rushforth
As mentioned in the pull request, this cannot be done as proposed without causing a behavioral regression and breaking JavaFX applications. If done, it should be done carefully using a similar process to the deprecate-for-removal in one release (to give applications time to react and adapt) and

Re: RFR: 8248122: java.base should not handle JavaFX application in a specific way

2020-10-31 Thread Kevin Rushforth
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

Re: RFR: 8248122: java.base should not handle JavaFX application in a specific way

2020-10-31 Thread Kevin Rushforth
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

8248122: java.base should not handle JavaFX application in a specific way

2020-10-31 Thread Kartik Ohri
Hi! JavaFX is no longer a part of OpenJDK. It does not make sense to treat it specially in the JDK. Hence, as suggested in JDK- 8248122 , the Launcher class should be refactored to remove the JavaFX

Re: RFR: 8248122: java.base should not handle JavaFX application in a specific way

2020-10-31 Thread Alan Bateman
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

RFR: 8248122: java.base should not handle JavaFX application in a specific way

2020-10-31 Thread Kartik Ohri
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/