[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       openjdk-openjfx-dev
Subject:    Re: [12] RFR: JDK-8209966: Update minimum boot JDK to 11
From:       Johan Vos <johan.vos () gluonhq ! com>
Date:       2018-09-27 6:52:04
Message-ID: CABxFH2E63mRAf4JXD79ymfZ5=t0OXDDSz5ZfpfBt+NURTj9RtA () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

Historically, there was a no-go for default interface methods in the 8-tree
a long time ago, as those would break the android port (thanks Stephen
Northover for imposing that).
Hence, I was happy with the restrictions not to use new language features.
Android is a special case though, as that is the only environment I know
about where the JavaFX applications (and jars) are not running on
controllable JRE's. If JavaFX applications are packaged and bundled with
JRE's, I don't see reasons why moving to new JDK versions can be a problem.

However, if there are more cases like Android, where the developer doesn't
control the version at runtime, we have to consider being more conservative=
.

- Johan

On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 2:49 AM Nir Lisker <nlisker@gmail.com> wrote:

> >
> > but wouldn't go out of our way to stop it from running on JDK N-2
> > unless/until there was a feature or bug fix that required something fro=
m
> > JDK N-1.
> >
>
> I would be surprised if there will be a release without a language change=
,
> as I don't recall any release without one, and Amber (and friends) keeps
> providing.
> Now, we can discuss what is "required". Java 11 added 'var' for Lambdas. =
Is
> it something worth bumping the minimum version for? Isn't it enough that
> it's used once in the codebase to make it incompatible with pre-11 JDK's?
> And if so, we'll have to document what contributors are allowed to use an=
d
> what not when working on JavaFX.
>
> We will have to have this discussion every release to determine if we bum=
p
> the minimum version or not.
>
> On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 12:27 AM Jos=C3=A9 J. Rodriguez <
> jose.rodriguez@cenpalab.cu> wrote:
>
> > Ty Young wrote:
> > >
> > > And it's only going to get worse as time goes on. Would it not be
> > > possible to support up until the last JDK LTS(Starting at 11) release
> > > for building JavaFX? I feel like maybe that would be more reasonable.
> > >
> >
> >
> > FWIW, I would prefer it if jfx only followed the LTS jdk releases.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Joe1962
> >
>
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]