This discussion is archived
1 Reply Latest reply: Feb 12, 2013 10:56 AM by jsmith RSS

javadoc and source jars aren't easily downloaded

990635 Newbie
Currently Being Moderated
Why don't you supply javadoc and source jars in your download area?

Without these development and adoption on java fx is painful, especially because there are lots of method signatures and constructors that take primitive or String parameters that are named arg0, arg1, etc.

Supplying these in an easily accessible manner should be one of the first things you do when producing an API/libraries that you expect to be widely used.
  • 1. Re: javadoc and source jars aren't easily downloaded
    jsmith Guru
    Currently Being Moderated
    supply javadoc
    Javadoc for JavaFX is available from the same location as the standard JDK Javadoc:
    http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/downloads/index.html
    Choose Java SE 7 Documentation "Download" and click on the javafx-2_2_0-apidocs.zip file to download it.
    and source
    Not all of JavaFX is currently open source, so a single source jar containing all JavaFX source cannot be supplied.

    You can download a zip of the source code which is currently open and configure your IDE to reference it.
    Use the zip link at http://hg.openjdk.java.net/openjfx/8/master/rt/file/tip to get the latest sources.

    Information on how to configure Intellij Idea to know about JavaFX source code is here:
    http://stackoverflow.com/questions/13407017/javafx-source-code-not-showing-in-intellij-idea
    If you are adept at your IDE, you could put together similar instructions for the IDE of your choice.
    And yes, I understand that that source configuration process is not the most intuitive of things.

    My understanding is that the JavaFX Java Source will be bundled with the jdk similar to (or inside) the current jdk src.zip at some time before Java 8 is released.

    The issue to track for this is:
    http://javafx-jira.kenai.com/browse/RT-21415 "jfxrt-sources.jar is missing from distribution"
    You can go to jira and vote or comment on the issue if you like.
    Without these development and adoption on java fx is painful, especially because there are lots of method signatures and constructors that take primitive or String parameters that are named arg0, arg1, etc.
    Generally, IDEs infer parameter names from the javadoc, not the sources (may vary from IDE to IDE though).
    If you set up the javadoc references correctly for your IDE, then you may find the the IDE determines more meaningful parameter names.

Legend

  • Correct Answers - 10 points
  • Helpful Answers - 5 points