On 1/4/2013 3:10 PM, David DeHaven wrote:
Cmd line FAC LAUNCH_MODE JAVAFX_LAUNCH_MODE
java -jar fxapp.jarPresent LM_JAR LM_JAR
java -jar fxapp.jarNot present LM_JAR [LM_JAR]
java -cp fxapp.jar ... Not present LM_CLASS
>>> Cmd line FAC LAUNCH_MODE
>>> JAVAFX_LAUNCH_MODE
>>> java -jar fxapp.jarPresent LM_JAR LM_JAR
>>> java -jar fxapp.jarNot present LM_JAR [LM_JAR]
>>> java -cp fxapp.jar ... Not present LM_CLASS
On 1/4/2013 12:27 PM, David DeHaven wrote:
Cmd line FAC LAUNCH_MODE JAVAFX_LAUNCH_MODE
java -jar fxapp.jarPresent LM_JAR LM_JAR
java -jar fxapp.jarNot present LM_JAR [LM_JAR]
java -cp fxapp.jar ... Not present LM_CLASS
> Cmd line FAC LAUNCH_MODE JAVAFX_LAUNCH_MODE
> java -jar fxapp.jarPresent LM_JAR LM_JAR
> java -jar fxapp.jarNot present LM_JAR [LM_JAR]
> java -cp fxapp.jar ... Not present LM_CLASSLM_CLASS
[pardon the data shuffle…]
Cmd line FAC LAUNCH_MODE JAVAFX_LAUNCH_MODE
java -jar fxapp.jarPresent LM_JAR LM_JAR
java -jar fxapp.jarNot present LM_JAR [LM_JAR]
java -cp fxapp.jar ... Not present LM_CLASS
David,
It is looking good, a couple of comments and requests:
1. LauncherHelper.java: Can you please document the table below in
LauncherHelper.java, and a note to refer to LauncherHelper.java in
FXLauncherTest.java this will make it easier to understand everything
in the future.
2.
[adding core-libs-dev back in.. not sure how that got lost]
> [Back from vacation, let's get the ball rolling again… :]
>
>> In order to understand and explain here is a truth table:
>>
>> Cmd line FAC LAUNCH_MODE JAVAFX_LAUNCH_MODE
>> java -jar fxapp.jarPr
On 12/21/2012 5:52 PM, Kevin Rushforth wrote:
David DeHaven wrote:
This explains what caused the confusion - I didn't expect that "java -jar fxapp.jar" will be passed
to fxlauncher with the same launch mode as "java -cp fxapp.jar SomeFXAppClass" (i.e. LM_CLASS). I
think the semantics th
The changes for RT-26751 are in this weeks promotion of JavaFX, so should be
available in next weeks JRE build (I think.. I'm never sure about promotion
timing..).
No, we have a synchronized promotion now. So this week's FX promotion
and this week's JDK promotion are the same thing.
--
Inline...
David DeHaven wrote:
I need more coffee this morning :-)
I have that problem often :)
In the absence of JavaFX-Application-Class, canLaunchFXAppJar simply returns
false. It does not load the FX launcher on failure or it would be doing so for
non-FX jars which would cause
> I need more coffee this morning :-)
I have that problem often :)
>> In the absence of JavaFX-Application-Class, canLaunchFXAppJar simply returns
>> false. It does not load the FX launcher on failure or it would be doing so
>> for non-FX jars which would cause testExtraneousJars to fail.
>>
On 12/21/2012 8:58 AM, David DeHaven wrote:
Later I figured out that too. In that case, I think loadJavaFxLauncher() is
called twice. LM_CLASS may be used for a JAR file with a Main-Class pointing
to a FX application entry point which is confusing. So the fxlauncher only
needs to know the m
> David,
>
> It looks great here are few items I noticed:
> 1. The error defined by:
>
> +java.launcher.javafx.error1=\
> +Error: The JavaFX runtime is incompatible with the Java launcher
>
> is used for a signature mismatch, I suggest changing the
> message to reflect the real reason.
How
Request for review for extending the launcher support to allow the JavaFX
runtime to fully support all of it's launch features, including
preloaders, classpath, etc..
>> >> Webrev:
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ddehaven/8004547/webrev.1/
>>> > > FXHelper.canLaunche
David,
It looks great here are few items I noticed:
1. The error defined by:
+java.launcher.javafx.error1=\
+Error: The JavaFX runtime is incompatible with the Java launcher
is used for a signature mismatch, I suggest changing the
message to reflect the real reason.
2. Nit: extraneous n
On 12/21/2012 7:43 AM, David DeHaven wrote:
Request for review for extending the launcher support to allow the JavaFX
runtime to fully support all of it's launch features, including preloaders,
classpath, etc..
>>
>> Webrev:
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ddehaven/8004547/webrev.1/
>
>
>> Request for review for extending the launcher support to allow the JavaFX
>> runtime to fully support all of it's launch features, including preloaders,
>> classpath, etc..
>>
>> Webrev:
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ddehaven/8004547/webrev.1/
>
> FXHelper.canLauncherFXAppJar launches a JA
Hi David,
On 12/20/2012 7:17 PM, David DeHaven wrote:
Request for review for extending the launcher support to allow the JavaFX
runtime to fully support all of it's launch features, including preloaders,
classpath, etc..
Webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ddehaven/8004547/webrev.1/
FXHelpe
Request for review for extending the launcher support to allow the JavaFX
runtime to fully support all of it's launch features, including preloaders,
classpath, etc..
Webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ddehaven/8004547/webrev.1/
Corresponding JavaFX JIRA issue that these changes depend on:
ht
19 matches
Mail list logo
