Thank you, I'll take a look.
If you say it works up to Java 10, how does it look with browser support.
Are you able to run JavaFX app in latest versions of Chrome or Firefox?
Thanks.
Dňa 22/10/2018 o 23:00 Sverre Moe napísal(a):
You also mentioned a "up-to-date" manual.
Take a look at
Hi Kevin,
Please review 8u backport for JDK-8157913:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8157913
Thanks,
Alexander
You also mentioned a "up-to-date" manual.
Take a look at javafx-gradle-plugin
https://github.com/FibreFoX/javafx-gradle-plugin
You can use it to build an JavaFX 8 application with Java Web Start
deployment.
/Sverre
Den man. 22. okt. 2018 kl. 19:20 skrev Sverre Moe :
> Yes it still works with
Yes it still works with Java 8 and up to Java 10. The Java Web Start was
removed in Java 11.
/Sverre
Den man. 22. okt. 2018 kl. 19:15 skrev Martin Ciglan :
> OK.
>
> Is it still possible to do it with Java8?
> Dňa 22/10/2018 o 19:14 Sverre Moe napísal(a):
>
> Deployment by web browser is no
Deployment by web browser is no longer possible with Java 11 as they
removed Java Web Start.
If you want your JavaFX application to run in a web browser, take a look at
JPro https://www.jpro.one/.
/Sverre
Den man. 22. okt. 2018 kl. 14:53 skrev Martin Ciglan :
> Hi
>
> I am developing openJFX11
A great idea that I had forgotten about. One of the Reviewers mentioned
the same to me off list.
-- Kevin
On 10/21/2018 3:05 AM, Nir Lisker wrote:
Hi Kevin,
I suggest to add an "areas of expertise" (modules or JBS components)
to the list of reviewers on the Code Reviews page, at least for
+1
My mistake for missing this. Sorry about that. I'll get it pushed for
you shortly.
-- Kevin
On 10/21/2018 12:49 PM, Nir Lisker wrote:
Hi,
Please review the simple fix for:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8212728
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~nlisker/8212728/webrev.00/
Thanks,
Renaming the native libraries in JavaFX would probably solve this, but that
seems the wrong solution to me.
Yes, it seems like a workaround rather than a fix...
-- Kevin
On 10/21/2018 10:45 AM, Johan Vos wrote:
Hi Tom,
Nice workaround, but what do you think needs to be done to fix it?
