Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #38628 > unrolled thread

Using OpenJFX with OpenJDK 11 without module path?

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.java.programmer

Contents

  Using OpenJFX with OpenJDK 11 without module path? Sebastian <nowhere@nirvana.org> - 2018-10-02 19:23 +0200
    Re: Using OpenJFX with OpenJDK 11 without module path? Knute Johnson <nospam@rabbitbrush.frazmtn.com> - 2018-10-02 16:09 -0500
      Re: Using OpenJFX with OpenJDK 11 without module path? Martin Gregorie <martin@mydomain.invalid> - 2018-10-02 21:30 +0000
        Re: Using OpenJFX with OpenJDK 11 without module path? Martin Gregorie <martin@mydomain.invalid> - 2018-10-02 23:52 +0000
          Changed to: Q for Martin Knute Johnson <nospam@rabbitbrush.frazmtn.com> - 2018-10-03 11:21 -0500
            Re: Changed to: Q for Martin Martin Gregorie <martin@mydomain.invalid> - 2018-10-03 23:18 +0000
              Re: Changed to: Q for Martin Knute Johnson <nospam@rabbitbrush.frazmtn.com> - 2018-10-04 09:26 -0500
                Re: Changed to: Q for Martin Martin Gregorie <martin@mydomain.invalid> - 2018-10-04 20:28 +0000

#38628 — Using OpenJFX with OpenJDK 11 without module path?

Hi,

I'd like to get a working OpenJDK/OpenJFX 11 runtime for Java FX 
applications. The last time I looked was with Java 8 when there still 
were pre-built overlays available, but those days are gone by. Nowadays, 
I seem to be required to download and install OpenJFX to a different 
location and change all my batch scripts to use the module path, see 
https://openjfx.io/openjfx-docs/#install-javafx.

Is that really so? Or can I somehow (perhaps via environment variables) 
configure OpenJDK 11 to be so liberal as to load OpenJFX using just the 
classpath, and include the OpenJFX jars in a place where they are found 
automatically?

-- Sebastian

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#38629

On 10/2/2018 12:23, Sebastian wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I'd like to get a working OpenJDK/OpenJFX 11 runtime for Java FX 
> applications. The last time I looked was with Java 8 when there still 
> were pre-built overlays available, but those days are gone by. Nowadays, 
> I seem to be required to download and install OpenJFX to a different 
> location and change all my batch scripts to use the module path, see 
> https://openjfx.io/openjfx-docs/#install-javafx.
> 
> Is that really so? Or can I somehow (perhaps via environment variables) 
> configure OpenJDK 11 to be so liberal as to load OpenJFX using just the 
> classpath, and include the OpenJFX jars in a place where they are found 
> automatically?
> 
> -- Sebastian

I think setting the module-path and adding the modules modules is the 
way of the future (such as it is).  I think it makes JavaFX an ugly step 
cousin.  I only hope they don't break off Swing too.

-- 

Knute Johnson

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#38630

On Tue, 02 Oct 2018 16:09:43 -0500, Knute Johnson wrote:

> I think setting the module-path and adding the modules modules is the
> way of the future (such as it is).  I think it makes JavaFX an ugly step
> cousin.  I only hope they don't break off Swing too.
>
For those of us who're used to OSen with reasonably modular package 
management systems this may well bring Java into line with other 
languages, e.g. C and C++ where the 'language package' contains the 
compiler and closely associated tools and a fairly small standard 
library. Then if you want additional capabilities, e.g. graphics, ODBC 
client, you simply install the relevant packages.

Note that some languages, notably Perl and Python, have always worked 
this way, though they do it via language-specific tools and add-on 
packages.

The Java standard class set has always been somewhat unwieldy. awt, 
Swing, etc are fair enough, but to include beans, sql, image handling, 
sound, CORBA, XML and friends in the unitary standard class set is really 
going a bit far because a lot of sites won't use more than one or two of 
these. So, to me anyway, making them into separately installable packages 
makes a lot of sense.


-- 
Martin    | martin at
Gregorie  | gregorie dot org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#38631

On Tue, 02 Oct 2018 21:30:23 +0000, Martin Gregorie wrote:

> So, to me anyway, making them into separately installable
> packages makes a lot of sense.

For 'separately installable packages ' read 'add-on modules'.


-- 
Martin    | martin at
Gregorie  | gregorie dot org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#38632 — Changed to: Q for Martin

Martin are you still flying gliders?


-- 

Knute Johnson

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#38633 — Re: Changed to: Q for Martin

On Wed, 03 Oct 2018 11:21:20 -0500, Knute Johnson wrote:

> Martin are you still flying gliders?

Yes. I've not done nearly as much flying as I expected this year, but am 
intending do more and better in 2019. My Std Libelle had some mods: I 
moved the pitot from fin to nose to keep the type certificate holder 
happy, replumbed the TE probe, fixed ancient undocumented damage to the 
undercarriage, sorted out radio problems and cleared an AD this year, but 
the glider is now in good shape for next year.

Curiosity: why do you ask?


-- 
Martin    | martin at
Gregorie  | gregorie dot org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#38634 — Re: Changed to: Q for Martin

On 10/3/2018 18:18, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Oct 2018 11:21:20 -0500, Knute Johnson wrote:
> 
>> Martin are you still flying gliders?
> 
> Yes. I've not done nearly as much flying as I expected this year, but am
> intending do more and better in 2019. My Std Libelle had some mods: I
> moved the pitot from fin to nose to keep the type certificate holder
> happy, replumbed the TE probe, fixed ancient undocumented damage to the
> undercarriage, sorted out radio problems and cleared an AD this year, but
> the glider is now in good shape for next year.
> 
> Curiosity: why do you ask?

I was just curious if you were still flying.  I've been thinking about 
going down to Boerne, TX and flying gliders again.  I'm living in 
central Texas now and the weather here should be fabulous for soaring 
and there isn't much going on.  I've been thinking of trading my Cub for 
a motor glider but I can't find one I fit in (too tall!).

-- 

Knute Johnson

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#38635 — Re: Changed to: Q for Martin

On Thu, 04 Oct 2018 09:26:42 -0500, Knute Johnson wrote:

> On 10/3/2018 18:18, Martin Gregorie wrote:
>> On Wed, 03 Oct 2018 11:21:20 -0500, Knute Johnson wrote:
>> 
>>> Martin are you still flying gliders?
>> 
>> Yes. I've not done nearly as much flying as I expected this year, but
>> am intending do more and better in 2019. My Std Libelle had some mods:
>> I moved the pitot from fin to nose to keep the type certificate holder
>> happy, replumbed the TE probe, fixed ancient undocumented damage to the
>> undercarriage, sorted out radio problems and cleared an AD this year,
>> but the glider is now in good shape for next year.
>> 
>> Curiosity: why do you ask?
> 
> I was just curious if you were still flying.  I've been thinking about
> going down to Boerne, TX and flying gliders again.  I'm living in
> central Texas now and the weather here should be fabulous for soaring
> and there isn't much going on.  I've been thinking of trading my Cub for
> a motor glider but I can't find one I fit in (too tall!).

I can't help there: the only motor glider I've flown in is the Scheibe 
SF-25 and I imagine you wouldn't want one of those. The new things 
creeping over the horizon are the latest generation of self-launchers - 
pretty nice, composite structure airframes with choice of motive power:
electric or petrol engines with propellers and some jets. These have 
starting to appear at my club in the last year or two though most of then 
are 'turbos', not self-launch. The one to drool over, in my opinion 
anyway, is the Antares 20E, a 20m span self-launcher with wings full of 
batteries and the ability to take of and climb 10,000 ft - which 
translates into around 200 km get-home range assuming you've taken off 
and climbed 2000ft before shutting down, putting the motor away and 
starting to soar. These have been around long enough to start appearing 
on the used market. The resident example at my club as been around for a 
while and its owner doesn't seem likely to part with it, and is nice and 
quiet on take-off thanks to a big, 2m diameter), relatively slow turning 
prop.

If you do find a suitably comfortable self-launcher I'll be very 
interested to know what you get.  


-- 
Martin    | martin at
Gregorie  | gregorie dot org

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.java.programmer

csiph-web