These are all excellent points. I would add that while a new language
feature would be the biggest reason to update, there could be new JDK
API that we would want to use as an argument type or return type in a
new FX API. I'm not aware of any in the JDK 12-16 range (at least not
ones that don't also have language changes such as records), but it has
happened before.
So taking all of this into account, it seems that unless someone wants
to make an argument for a feature (language or API) from JDK 12 or later
that we need to use in JavaFX 17, it seems unlikely that we will bump
the minimum.
-- Kevin
On 5/19/2021 7:35 AM, Johan Vos wrote:
Hi,
This is an important and good discussion, and I've read a number of
valid points. To reiterate what I've always stated:
* we don't want to increase the base (JDK) version just for the sake
of increasing
* we don't want to lose significant benefits (or developer
productivity) by sticking with old versions.
This comes down to the question that is indeed the most important: are
there *language* features in JDK 12 or higher that would improve the
quality of OpenJFX? Clearly we're not talking about runtime
improvements, as it's up to the developer/use to choose a runtime.
Personally, I don't see many possible huge improvements in the JavaFX
API by using JDK 12+ features, but I might be missing things.
Related to the LTS discussion (disclaimer: just my personal opinion
here, not an "official" Gluon statement): I don't see that as the
primary reason for bumping the dependency. The thing we want to avoid
though is that there is a jump in the required Java SDK inside an LTS
family (e.g. JavaFX 11 has Java 11 as its base, and JavaFX 11.0.12
will have Java 11 as its base as well).
This might become harder in the future, as I can imagine Valhalla
having a bigger impact on OpenJFX then e.g. Loom. Hence, in case 17 is
an LTS version and it starts being based on Java 11, and in case we
decide to bump the base level for JavaFX 20 to e.g. Java 19, it might
become much harder to backport issues into the 17-tree.
In that spirit, it would make sense to bump the version for 17, but it
seems a bit artificial as the major new language benefits (to OpenJFX)
in the JDK might occur in between 2 LTS families.
- Johan
On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 12:39 AM Kevin Rushforth
<kevin.rushfo...@oracle.com <mailto:kevin.rushfo...@oracle.com>> wrote:
You raise a good point about whether or not it should matter if a
version is (generally considered to be) an LTS release. I wasn't
suggesting that we necessarily wait until the next LTS to consider
picking up an important new feature, just that it could be one
factor. I
also would be very interested to hear from Gluon on this point.
Your second point is the more interesting one. It comes down to the
question of when is there a new feature (or set of new features)
that is
compelling enough that we want to require that version of the JDK in
order to be able to use it.
So for this specific discussion: Is there any language feature or
API in
JDK 12 - 16 that is compelling enough that we would want to bump
the JDK
in order to be able to use it?
-- Kevin
On 5/18/2021 2:42 PM, Nir Lisker wrote:
>
> there are some advantages in being able to run with the
latest JDK LTS
>
>
> One *potential* issue with this approach is that LTS is not
defined in
> OpenJDK as far as I know. The LTS versions are a business
decision of
> each distributor. For now, they have all aligned on 8, 11, 17, but
> nothing guarantees that this will stay so. What if different
vendors
> LTS different versions? Suppose that Valhalla and Loom add very
> attractive features in JDK 19 (big performance enhancements,
leads to
> big money savings on hardware, leads to economic incentives to use
> these, leads to requests to support these), now vendors can declare
> JDK 19 as LTS, and what will JavaFX do?
> In OpenJDK all versions are treated equally as it is a spec and
not a
> business model. Should JavaFX be coupled to business models? Maybe
> Gluon has some insights since they give JavaFX LTS support.
>
> A second point, as Michael Strauß mentioned, is that maybe we
should
> see what features are going to be delivered in the next versions
and
> judge if there's something attractive enough for library
developers to
> base our decision on. Sealed classes from Amber are certainly
one of
> them. Panama might provide handy features for JavaFX's interfacing
> with native code, like Foreign Memory Access, though I didn't look
> into it in detail. Valhalla is certainly too far away to
consider, and
> Loom is rather irrelevant for JavaFX and GUIs in general.
> If anyone has insights into relevant upcoming features I'll be
happy
> to learn.
>
> - Nir
>
> On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 6:17 PM Kevin Rushforth
> <kevin.rushfo...@oracle.com <mailto:kevin.rushfo...@oracle.com>
<mailto:kevin.rushfo...@oracle.com
<mailto:kevin.rushfo...@oracle.com>>> wrote:
>
> A very timely question. I was already planning to raise this
as a
> discussion after we update our boot JDK to JDK 16 (blocked
by the
> in-progress gradle 7 update), which I hope to do later this
week.
>
> I think that this is the right time to consider bumping the
minimum
> required version to run JavaFX 17 to JDK 16, which would
allow us to
> start using APIs and language features from JDK 12 through
JDK 16
> inclusive.
>
> In general, we only guarantee that JavaFX N runs on JDK N-1 or
> later. In
> practice, though, we don't bump it for each release, as
there are
> some
> advantages in being able to run with the latest JDK LTS. Since
> JavaFX 17
> will release at roughly the same time as JDK 17 LTS, I can't
think
> of a
> good reason to not update our minimum.
>
> Comments?
>
> -- Kevin
>
>
> On 5/18/2021 7:59 AM, Michael Strauß wrote:
> > Currently, JDK 11 is required for the latest version of
OpenJFX.
> What
> > is the policy for bumping this requirement? Does it always
> correspond
> > to the latest JDK LTS release (the next of which will be
JDK 17), or
> > is it independent from the release cycle of OpenJDK?
>
