Hi Kevin, all, I agree with this proposal and with the rationale behind it. It provides a solid foundation for future consistent decisions as well.
- Johan On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 11:14 PM Kevin Rushforth <kevin.rushfo...@oracle.com> wrote: > All, > > Even though we build JavaFX binaries with JDK 21 as the boot JDK, the > latest version of JavaFX still runs with JDK 17, although it isn't > tested with older JDK versions. In order for JavaFX to be able to use > newer JDK features, such as code snippets (in API docs), record > patterns, pattern matching for switch statements, and so forth, we need > to increase the minimum version of the JDK that can run the latest > JavaFX. Additionally, there is an ongoing cost to keeping JavaFX > buildable and runnable on older versions of Java, and very little reason > to continue to do so. > > A question was raised [1] as to whether we should go even further and, > once JDK 22 is released, jump straight to JDK 22 as a minimum. While we > could do that, I feel that there isn't sufficient justification for this > at this time, although we could reconsider for next release. > > To this end, I propose to bump the minimum version of the JDK needed to > run JavaFX 23 to JDK 21. I filed JDK-8321603 [2] to track this and > prepared PR #1370 [3] (I've moved the PR back to Draft, pending this > discussion). This will not affect update releases of earlier versions of > JavaFX (e.g., JavaFX 21.0.NN or JavaFX 17.0.NN), which will continue to > run with the same minimum JDK that they run on today. > > As a reminder, we only assure that JavaFX NN will run with JDK NN-1 or > later, although in practice, we don't bump the minimum required JDK > version without a good reason. For example, while JavaFX 22 is built > using JDK 21 as the boot JDK, it produces class files that will run with > JDK 17, using "--release 17". The proposed change discussed here would > update that in JavaFX 23 to "--release 21". > > NOTE: this will not be an invitation to do wholesale refactoring of > existing classes or methods to use newer language features (e.g., a PR > that refactors existing switch statements and switch expressions into > pattern-matching switch expressions would not be welcome). Rather, this > can be seen as enabling judicious use of new features in new code, much > as we did when we started allowing the use of "var", records, and > pattern-matching instanceof. > > Comments are welcome. > > -- Kevin > > [1] > https://mail.openjdk.org/pipermail/openjfx-dev/2023-December/044081.html > [2] https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8321603 > [3] https://github.com/openjdk/jfx/pull/1370 > >
