<@U0F3291QE> It turns out that #778 is a JavaFX is...

# tornadofx

[carlw]

@edvin It turns out that #778 is a JavaFX issue. The plain JavaFX / TornadoFX comparison that the author referenced wasn’t quite the same. I posted a rewrite of TornadoFX that didn’t throw the error and a JavaFX version that did.

The ticket can be pushed onto JavaFX and closed IMO