Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] e(fx)clipse participating in Mars release


Von meinem iPhone gesendet

>> Am 21.08.2014 um 22:32 schrieb Tom Schindl <tom.schindl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>> On 21.08.14 22:18, Alexander Nyßen wrote:
>> Hi Tom,
>> I was only referring to the org.eclipse.javafx bundle of e(fx)clipse,
>> which - as far as I understood - is basically there to deal with the
>> target resolving, while the org.eclipse.fx.osgi seems to perform the
>> runtime resolving, right? I am no expert, but as far as the target
> No this is wrong org.eclipse.javafx is there so that:
> a) the target platform resolves
> b) at runtime bundles who do an import-package of javafx get physically
>  wired to org.eclipse.javafx
> c) the classloader constructed for org.eclipse.javafx is provided by
>  the org.eclipse.fx.osgi adapter hook.

that's actually what I understood and was referring to (maybe that didn't get clear). 

If I try to relate this to what Ed said, a) and b) seem to be about 1) target and 2) installation resolving (which I falsely subsumed under just target resolving), while b) as well as c) seem to be related to 3) runtime resolving. 

Maybe the jre dummy bundle mechanism works different then I expect it to work, but with respect to 1) and 2), the org.eclipse.javafx bundle seemed to play a similar role, so that's where I saw the analogy. I was not referring to the role it plays in 3), which seems to make the difference.

>> resolving is concerned, there seemed to be an analogy. Maybe I'm wrong,
>> I'm no expert on this...
> Yep you are wrong.
> Tom


> _______________________________________________
> cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
> cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit

Back to the top