On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 19:47:08 GMT, Kevin Rushforth <k...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> We could also do that, but the problem is that the contents of JEP 12 only >> map to JavaFX in some parts, but not in others. So we would need to include >> weasel language like "where applicable" (which always leaves a bit of room >> for interpretation), or provide what would basically be a detailed >> sentence-by-sentence diff. >> >> So in the end, it might still be easier to point at our own (complete) >> definition instead of a partially applicable definition somewhere else. > > Andy's suggestion matches what I did for [Incubator > Modules](https://github.com/kevinrushforth/jfx/blob/jfx.incubator/INCUBATOR-MODULES.md). > This idea being that, given familiarity with the JDK concept (with a pointer > to where you can read more about that), how are JavaFX Preview Features > different? 90% vs 95%, lack of javac support, we use a property rather than a > dedicated command line option, etc. > So in the end, it might still be easier to point at our own (complete) > definition instead of a partially applicable definition somewhere else. Even if this ends up being the way we go, a pointer to JEP 12 and list of key differences would be helpful. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jfx/pull/1359#discussion_r1941836869
