4 ms·
To add to that. It was previously included directly in the JDK but is now a standalone product.
by kasperni 6y ago
To add to that. It was previously included directly in the JDK but is now a standalone product.
- billfruit 6y agoWhy do they keep doing that, it makes dependecy management etc, more complicated. Sometime ago they did that with JavaFx, while still retaining AWT as part of JDK: what a baffling move, discard the best GUI framework on the platform, while including the most obsolete one.
- pron 6y agoIt wasn't discarded, just delivered separately. Unlike Swing/AWT, JavaFX is not part of the Java SE standard, so vendors don't have to include it, but users can use it like any library.
- usrusr 6y agoBurdening all five users of FX or Nashorn with the one time act of dependency management setup is a much lower cost for java popularity than burdening all other users of java with the repeated minor annoyance of JRE bloat. As a bonus, both have a much better chance of seeing continued development outside of the stifling rigidness of the JRE development process.
- chrisseaton 6y agoThe team at Oracle can't be responsible for maintaining such a large set of complex and sometimes niche dependencies - it just isn't realistic or reasonable.
- samus 6y agoThese project operate at a much different pace than the JDK. Actually, it makes everyones life easier: any sane project at scale already uses a dependency management tool, and it's just another entry there. Also, it makes it possible to nail down the JavaFX version that is used. It's one moving target less that varies by JRE version at deployment time and can ruin the show.