On 9/28/2025 6:52 AM, Johan Vos wrote:
On Sat, Sep 27, 2025 at 11:59 PM Kevin Rushforth <[email protected]> wrote:... Optionally, it could support linking those modules into the JDK. I note that is already possible using jlink on the JMODs produce above, but it could be more convenient to have support for direct integration.I think the difference between this project and what is currently possible using jlink is more than just convenience. When using jlink to create a JRE, there is no guarantee that the modules are built in a consistent approach. Hence, it is possible to have the core modules built against glibc 2.39 and the javafx modules built against glibc 2.35. When building everything from the same build tools, we ensure that the native libraries are very consistent with each other. It also makes maintenance of OpenJFX easier, as we regularly update the minimum requirements of some dependencies because they are updated in OpenJDK.
What I meant is that you could use this project to separately build the JDK and then JavaFX JMODs using the exact same toolchains and then use jlink to create a JDK with JavaFX modules. In that way, you would ensure consistency in building the native libs. However, as you point out below...
The additional jlink step that is currently needed if one wants to distribute a JRE with JavaFX requires "unpacking" 2 projects, mixing some artifacts, and repackaging it. While the tools do this is are really great, it is still more plumbing work than the case where the `make images` is used when compiling the JDK and where the JavaFX modules are immediately part of the image.
Yes, this is definitely easier and seems well worth supporting as a better way to build a JDK that includes JavaFX modules. And in addition to the repackaging, it would need to be signed (and on macOS notarized) again.
-- Kevin
