Re: modules versus SDK's

Agreed. On Mar 27, 2018, at 8:16 PM, Pedro Duque Vieira wrote: Like Kevin says I don't think this is a one or the other choice. I think we need to think about people who are just evaluating the platform or learning, and whether making them also have to learn

Re: [11] Review request : JDK-8195799 : Use System logger instead of platform logger in javafx modules

It can be addressed later while I think this is a simple change to the getInstance method.  I guess you prefer to keep PlatformLogger as close to the original version and that's fine. Mandy On 3/27/18 4:46 AM, Kevin Rushforth wrote: It doesn't seem harmful to keep the current implementation.

modules versus SDK's

Like Kevin says I don't think this is a one or the other choice. I think we need to think about people who are just evaluating the platform or learning, and whether making them also have to learn about build tools is good. I'd say part of the web's success is it shallow learning curve, and why

Re: [11] Review request : JDK-8195799 : Use System logger instead of platform logger in javafx modules

Yes it could be converted, but wasn't necessary to remove the depenency, so I filed a separate JBS issue to track this replacing the calls to j.u.l: JDK-8195974 . -- Kevin Tom Schindl wrote: Minor question on this: I see the test stuff is

Re: [11] Review request : JDK-8195799 : Use System logger instead of platform logger in javafx modules

Minor question on this: I see the test stuff is using java.util.Logging could this not be ported to PlatformLogger? Tom On 26.03.18 22:46, Kevin Rushforth wrote: > This looks fine to me now. > > -- Kevin > > > Ajit Ghaisas wrote: >> Thanks all for the review. >> >> I have addressed the review

Re: Dependencies on java.desktop

On 27.03.18 14:26, Kevin Rushforth wrote: > Hi Tom, > > Yes, this is an unfortunate dependency. It is "only" an implementation > dependency, meaning that nothing in the public API depends on > java.desktop (which is why we don't "requires transient java.desktop"), > so it should be possible to

Re: OpenJFX GitHub mirror

Kevin, can we get a label for this? - Nir On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 4:37 PM, Johan Vos wrote: > Hi Nir, > > About 4. (jfx-dev): you're right, I just removed that repository. That was > just some testing before we did the real thing. > > As for the other points: I agree > >

Re: Dependencies on java.desktop

Hi Tom, Yes, this is an unfortunate dependency. It is "only" an implementation dependency, meaning that nothing in the public API depends on java.desktop (which is why we don't "requires transient java.desktop"), so it should be possible to remove this dependency in the future. As noted, it

Re: Dependencies on java.desktop

Hi, Anyone else has an opinion on that? Is require static the way to go? Tom On 21.03.18 23:23, Tom Schindl wrote: > Hi, > > I always thought the JavaFX-Codebase should be able to run with just the > java.base module but I was browsing the codebase a bit and was suprised > (or rather shocked)

RE: [11] Review request : JDK-8195799 : Use System logger instead of platform logger in javafx modules

Thanks for the review. As suggested, I have added Mandy’s point about loggers map to be addressed as part of JDK-8200236.   Regards, Ajit   From: Kevin Rushforth Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2018 2:16 AM To: mandy chung Cc: Ajit Ghaisas; Daniel Fuchs; openjfx-dev@openjdk.java.net Subject: Re: