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
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
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
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
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
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/
