Add all seven of the javafx modules to JavaBuild.java

[vsquared]

Please add _all seven of the javafx modules so that we may use JavaFX controls in our apps. Thanks.

[hx2A]

I'd like to second this. This change would also make it much easier to use JavaFX with py5.

[SableRaf]

Hi @vsquared and thanks for your suggestion. It looks like the current commit just adds a file to the root of the repository with instructions for modifying JavaBuild.java, instead of directly making the change in the file. Could you update the PR to modify JavaBuild.java directly instead so we can properly review the proposed changes?

[glvjr]

Hello,

I am seeing different behavior with Processing 4.3 and 4.3.1 (no changes and as is).

These will run in Processing 4.3.1 with the JavaFX jar files (all or only required) in the sketch folder:
https://discourse.processing.org/t/javafx-controls-preview/41353
https://discourse.processing.org/t/javafx-webview-preview/41343

I added this to the above in the sketch:
import processing.javafx.*;

They (above) will give errors in Processing 4.3

I did a build of Processing 4.3.1 with IntelliJ IDEA 2024.3 (community Edition) with this:

"--add-modules", "javafx.base,javafx.graphics,javafx.swing,javafx.controls,javafx.media,javafx.web,javafx.fxml",
And I still had to add the required jar files to the sketch folder.

This is on a W10 PC.

[vsquared]

After modifying two different Processing editors with the above change my observation is that adding the seven javafx jar files to the sketch folder is no longer necessary. I have no experience using javafx in IntelliJ or testing on a platform other than macos. My impression is that adding all the jar files to the sketch folder sometimes fails when trying to run javafx code in an editor that has not been modified. I cannot be 100% certain about this and it needs further study. Nevertheless, I don't think the average user wants to go to all the bother to find the seven jar files and copy them to the sketch folder just to run a javafx demo. It would be easier for everyone if a simple one line change was made to the editor. I know this works for macos, but have not tried it on Windows or Linux.
Addendum:
Processing 4.3 failed to run a javafx app with all seven jar files in sketch folder, either lying free or inside a 'code' folder. Another copy of a Processing 4.3 editor modified with the changes above will run the javafx demo without the addition of jar files.
Processing 4.3.1 on macos also failed to run a javafx app with all seven jar files in the sketch folder, both lying free and inside a 'code' folder.

[vsquared]

@SableRaf - I did another fork of the main app and edited the JavaBuild.java file and submitted a second pull request.

[Stefterv]

Hi @vsquared,

Please change the things I marked, I will now look into the JavaFX examples provided and see if they work

Looking at the context of this change as something specific and limited to existing cases handling JavaFX code I think it would probably be fine. I just need to test and understand your use case

[Stefterv]

Tested on windows, does indeed fix the issue you're describing, so happy to merge after the requested changes.
If you can find a user friendly way, e.g. not just adding the JavaFX jars to the code folder, please let me know. I would like to make that possible.

[Stefterv]

Cool thanks @vsquared!

I'll let you hit the merge button @SableRaf

[vsquared]

@Stefterv - If you can find a user friendly way, e.g. not just adding the JavaFX jars to the code folder, please let me know. I would like to make that possible.
On macos if you make the changes I suggested the user should not need to add the jar files to the sketch folder.