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 <nlis...@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 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 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 and > what not when working on JavaFX. > > We will have to have this discussion every release to determine if we bump > the minimum version or not. > > On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 12:27 AM José J. Rodriguez < > jose.rodrig...@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 > > >