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
>
> 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 from
> 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
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.
So I think we should official define the JDK N-1 and JDK N but don't pro
actively break JDK N-2, ... if there's no real value.
Perhaps your suggestion is a good compromise: if we choose this
approach, then we would still claim support for only JDK N-1 and JDK N,
but wouldn't go out of our
On 9/24/18 2:12 AM, Johan Vos 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.
This is a good
Hi,
As a general rule I'm fine with that but as outlined in another reply we
should only break building with older JDKs in case it really adds value.
So I think we should official define the JDK N-1 and JDK N but don't pro
actively break JDK N-2, ... if there's no real value.
Tom
On 24.09.18
In general, I think developers updating from JavaFX 11-12-13 are also
capable of updating the JDK from 11-12-13, so I prefer the coupling
1. Allow building JavaFX N with either JDK N-1 or JDK N.
This is also my preference.
-- Kevin
On 9/24/2018 12:12 AM, Johan Vos wrote:
> And
>
>
> > 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.
>
> This is a good question, and maybe in the future we might not be so
>
On 9/21/2018 6:00 PM, Ty Young wrote:
Is requiring the previously released JDK to build JavaFX really
necessary? Does something *actually* break as a result of using an
older boot JDK?
Yes, there is a good reason to do this, and that is to fix JDK-8210092
[1], which gets rid of the
On 9/21/18 5:27 PM, Kevin Rushforth wrote:
Please review the following on GitHub:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8209966
https://github.com/javafxports/openjdk-jfx/pull/174
This will bump the minimum boot JDK needed to build JavaFX 12 to JDK 11.
-- Kevin
Is requiring the
Please review the following on GitHub:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8209966
https://github.com/javafxports/openjdk-jfx/pull/174
This will bump the minimum boot JDK needed to build JavaFX 12 to JDK 11.
-- Kevin
Please ignore this subject line. I re-sent the RFR with the correct
subject line. There is not yet a proposed fix to review for updating the
minimum boot JDK to 11 (nor will there be for another 3-4 weeks until
JDK 11 is released).
Sorry for the mix-up.
-- Kevin
Please review the following on GitHub:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8209967
https://github.com/javafxports/openjdk-jfx/pull/169
This bumps the minimum version of gradle for openjfx 12 to the current
4.8 version (which is the version used by our builds and by gradlew).
This is
13 matches
Mail list logo
