don't understand the LTS concept at all or are unwilling to do so.
Even if it makes my life more difficult for some projects.
So a +1 from me.
-- Marius
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 02. Oktober 2024 um 16:45 Uhr
Von: "Kevin Rushforth"
An: "openjfx-dev"
Betreff: Proposal:
I just took the PR out of Draft, so it is ready for review.
In case anyone is interested, I refer you to the recently-published
Informational JEP 14: The Tip & Tail Model of Library Development [1],
which outlines some of the thinking behind this.
-- Kevin
[1] https://openjdk.org/jeps/14
O
It's more an evolving realization that there is little benefit to the
OpenJFX community to force JavaFX to be tied to an LTS release of the
JDK, and a cost to doing so (both in additional testing, opportunity
cost of using new features, etc). LTS releases are about stability and
support; if an
I was advocated to bump to JDK 22 last year, with FFM as a main reason to
replace sun.misc.Unsafe [1], so of course I endorse this. The main rebuttal
was that companies prefer to use LTS versions (although any distributor can
declare any version as LTS), so I wonder if these considerations still t
All,
Even though we build JavaFX 24 binaries with JDK 22 (and soon will build
with JDK 23) as the boot JDK, the latest version of JavaFX still runs
with JDK 21, although it isn't tested with older JDK versions. In order
for JavaFX to be able to use newer JDK features, such as FFM (Panama),
we
