JavaFX Java9 incompability

[Empire_Phoenix]

The exception is there by design
if it is thrown, a java9 variant is used instead

[javasabr]

I know, I just want to say that Class.forName() is works for classes from javaFX

[Empire_Phoenix]

Kinda strange I must say,

i do not get what they try to arcive by not being able to import classes, but ability to get them anyways via forName , seems inconsequent for me.

[javasabr]

for classes from JavaFX:

[Album]

[javasabr]

So, you have the problem with setAccessible for the method of protected class, but I use another approach. I try to get access to protected constructor of MethodHandles.Lookup() and then I use it for making the method/var handles.
I don’t call the setAccessible for methods of protected classes.

[javasabr]

I think you can use a method handle for destroying a direct buffer.

[javasabr]

Have implemented DnD

Implemented DnD listener

[gouessej]

@javasabr

I think you can use a method handle for destroying a direct buffer.

Please can you explain how to do it? I use my own mechanism to destroy direct NIO buffers, my source code is under GPL (yes I’m fed up with profitable organisations fixing bugs in my code but refusing to share their findings with me).

[javasabr]

It is not working, I have checked it

[pspeed]

@gouessej

yes I’m fed up with profitable organisations fixing bugs in my code but refusing to share their findings with me).

Since you brought it up… I’ll just point out that it also means that organizations that would have shared their findings now also potentially can’t use your code. So while one approach’s only down side was “It’s not fair.” but otherwise cost you nothing… the new approach’s downside is fewer users which costs you potential work-sharing.

…unless you really mean LGPL… then ignore me. Because with GPL it’s not a choice of “will I contribute back or not”. It’s often a choice of “can I even use this or not”… because of the viral nature of GPL.

[gouessej]

@pspeed

Since you brought it up… I’ll just point out that it also means that organizations that would have shared their findings now also potentially can’t use your code. So while one approach’s only down side was “It’s not fair.” but otherwise cost you nothing… the new approach’s downside is fewer users which costs you potential work-sharing.

…unless you really mean LGPL… then ignore me. Because with GPL it’s not a choice of “will I contribute back or not”. It’s often a choice of “can I even use this or not”… because of the viral nature of GPL.

It costs me a lot of time. When a (private or state controlled) company writes a fully shader based pipeline based on “our” source code (another engine I won’t name) for its game but refuses to spend some time to contribute back, I have to redo all the work by myself whereas I could spend my time to implement something else. It was the same when someone else working for another company ported the same engine to JOGL 2.0 several years before me, I had to redo all the work because the main developer has never shared his source code. Anyway, numerous companies violate the GPL too (I found some pieces of Java3D in a proprietary scenegraph I reverse engineered). I love the GPL and I consider that the technical knowledge should always be shared (I’m against bank secrecy and software secrecy as well). I totally understand that capitalist people here disagree with me but I don’t think that I will accept becoming the main maintainer of an engine not under GPL or a similar license in the future even though it will lead to few users and less work-sharing (which is debatable as the developers who agree with me would be more reluctant to contribute to a project with a permissive license).

Sorry for the off topic but I’m fed up with people always criticizing the GPL, I had to show another viewpoint.

[pspeed]

@gouessej

Sorry for the off topic but I’m fed up with people always criticizing the GPL, I had to show another viewpoint.

Well, there are many positive reasons to choose the GPL and that’s up to you. But some company doing their own work and not contributing it back is not really taking anything away from you. You’d have gotten the same out of it if they didn’t use it at all.

Different folks have different priorities. For me, my top priority is for my code to be used… so I pick the most unrestrictive license I can while still protecting my own interests. For others, the code actually being used is second or third place and that’s fine.

It’s only the “forcing them to give back their changes” logic that I disagree with the way stated. a) the choice is between them using your code or not using your code… so you get the same result either way. You gain nothing. b) it immediately prohibits a whole bunch of other potential contributions for people that can’t use GPL code for one reason or another. So in the non-GPL case, you cast a wider net for contributions. In the GPL case, you get a much much smaller audience and therefore the potential contribution pool is much smaller.

@gouessej

It costs me a lot of time. When a (private or state controlled) company writes a fully shader based pipeline based on “our” source code (another engine I won’t name) for its game but refuses to spend some time to contribute back, I have to redo all the work by myself whereas I could spend my time to implement something else.

It didn’t “cost” you anything. You’d have had to do that work if they hadn’t used your engine at all. One could argue that they got something for nothing… but they’d have also gotten something for nothing if they didn’t make any changes at all or didn’t distribute it outside of their own organization. (GPL only requires that you provide source to the folks you deliver the product to.)

Edit: and again, I totally respect your right to choose GPL for all of the variety of reasons you mention… but that one logic flaw always bugs me.