My application is reporting the following values for the respective
properties:
java.runtime.version: 11.0.1+13
java.class.version: 55.0
java.version: 11.0.1
javafx.version: 11
Shouldn't "javafx.version" follow the same naming conventions as used by
"java.version"?
Am 02.11.18 um 09:59 schrieb Johan Vos:
Hi,
We are about to release JavaFX 11.0.1, containing the fixes that made it
into the 11-dev repository.
An early-access build for this is available as SDK/jmods at
http://download2.gluonhq.com/openjfx/11.0.1/openjfx-11.0.1-ea+1_linux-x64_bin-jmods.zip
http://download2.gluonhq.com/openjfx/11.0.1/openjfx-11.0.1-ea+1_linux-x64_bin-sdk.zip
http://download2.gluonhq.com/openjfx/11.0.1/openjfx-11.0.1-ea+1_osx-x64_bin-jmods.zip
http://download2.gluonhq.com/openjfx/11.0.1/openjfx-11.0.1-ea+1_osx-x64_bin-sdk.zip
<http://download2.gluonhq.com/openjfx/11.0.1/openjfx-11.0.1-ea+1_linux-x64_bin-sdk.zip>
http://download2.gluonhq.com/openjfx/11.0.1/openjfx-11.0.1-ea+1_windows-x64_bin-jmods.zip
http://download2.gluonhq.com/openjfx/11.0.1/openjfx-11.0.1-ea+1_windows-x64_bin-sdk.zip
The maven artifacts are available in the usual repositories, with version
tag being "11.0.1-ea+1" e.g.
org.openjfx:javafx-base:11.0.1-ea+1 (see
http://repo.maven.apache.org/maven2/org/openjfx/javafx-base/11.0.1-ea+1/)
If we don't hear major issues with this ea, it should become the 11.0.1
release.
- Johan
