On Thu, 23 Sep 2021 12:43:20 GMT, Kevin Rushforth <[email protected]> wrote:
>> modules/javafx.graphics/src/main/java/com/sun/javafx/font/WindowsFontMap.java
>> line 32:
>>
>>> 30: class WindowsFontMap {
>>> 31:
>>> 32: private static class FamilyDescription {
>>
>> Isn't that basically a `record` in disguise?
>> Letting this class be a record would remove a lot of lines, especially down
>> below.
>> Also, it would come with the benefit of not having to worry about whether
>> these values have been changed or not as they would then always be final.
>> To me at least it does not look as if variables of this class should be
>> mutable after having been created.
>
> We still build JavaFX with `--release 11` so applications using JavaFX can
> run on JDK 11 or later. At some point we will bump the minimum version of
> Java that is required, but until then we cannot use records or any other
> feature that isn't in Java 11.
That is indeed a valid argument as to why this isn't a record.
Obviously, I did not think about that while reviewing.
-------------
PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jfx/pull/627
