3 ms·
Also, Swing is just there, so for a simple app you don’t need to figure out dependencies or how to fit JavaFX into maven/gradle.
by Ingon 5y ago
Also, Swing is just there, so for a simple app you don’t need to figure out dependencies or how to fit JavaFX into maven/gradle.
- shannah78 5y ago> figure out dependencies or how to fit JavaFX into maven/gradle. I struggle with the same thing. jDeploy solves one half of that (deploying javafx is no longer a struggle). I think there is still room to make creating new projects simpler.
- brabel 5y agoDon't do that, use a JVM that includes JavaFX, as this project seems to do. If you use SDKMAN, there are a couple of vendors, including Zulu, that distribute the latest JDKs with JavaFX included.
- alex_suzuki 5y agoLiberica too. Crucially they als have a 32-bit Windows build.
- whartung 5y agoI haven't seemed to be running into any problems ... yet ... with JavaFX maven dependencies. It pretty much Just Works(tm). A single main dependency (org.openjfx/javafx-control) and a plugin (org.openjfx/javafx-maven-plugin) and you're off to the races. I don't install JFX into the JDK at all (not even sure, honestly, if that's still a thing). I have more problems with JDK 9 modules (which modern JavaFX seems to support, but good luck with much of anything else of size). Since I am pretty much awful at GUI programming, I've made a lot more progress with FX on my home projects than Swing. It's no panacea, but it's been working for me.
- invalidname 5y agoDid you actually ship the app or is it something small scale? The pain of JavaFX becomes apparent at deployment time. Installing in a small closed ecosystem is fine. Mass market with all the variance. Ugh.