JavaFX 8.0

[Joe McGlynn]

Correct.  This avoids all manner of problems with untested combinations of FX and the JRE, having to download something in addition to the JRE, having a larger download size due to the need to ship double copies of the XML parser, deployment stack, etc.



-- 



Joe McGlynn | Senior Software Manager
Phone: +1 4082763383 | Mobile: +1 8312399494 
Oracle Java Platform
4220 Network Circle | Santa Clara, CA 95054
Skype: joebmcglynn


Oracle is committed to developing practices and products that help protect the environment
 

On Aug 16, 2012, at 6:54 AM, Tom Schindl <tom.schindl at bestsolution.at> wrote:

> So in future FX will only work with a fixed JDK-Version, unlike what we
> have today where JavaFX 2.2 supports JDK-6 and JDK-7 (at least on windows)?
> 
> Tom
> 
> Am 16.08.12 15:41, schrieb Kevin Rushforth:
>> Correct. This will be just starting with JDK8 as changing the major
>> version number for 2.x would be incompatible (and could not even be
>> considered as long as we still support JDK6 on Windows with a standalone
>> FX 2.x bundle).
>> 
>> Btw, here is the current planned mapping:
>> 
>> JDK   FX
>> ----  -----
>> 7u7   2.2.1
>> 7u8   2.2.2
>> 7u9   2.2.3
>> 7u10  2.2.4
>> 8     8.0
>> 
>> -- Kevin
>> 
>> Jonathan Giles wrote:
>>> As far as I'm aware, we won't be changing any 2.x versioning. The next
>>> minor releases of 2.x and 2.2.1 and 2.2.2. The next major release is
>>> now in the 8.x series of releases.
>>> 
>>> The intent is that within the Java 9 timeframe we will have formed a
>>> JSR and submitted JavaFX as a Java specification. The end result would
>>> be that JavaFX would form a core part of Java (presumably in its own
>>> module by then). Of course, we ship with Java 7 now, and will
>>> integrate more tightly with Java 8 (as shown by the numbering
>>> announced today). Integrating more tightly with Java 8 will allow us
>>> to, for example, make use of lambda's etc.
>>> 
>>> -- Jonathan
>>> 
>>> On 16/08/2012 3:53 p.m., Daniel Zwolenski wrote:
>>>> Good move. Keeping track of which version is which is kind of hard a the
>>>> moment. Marrying it to the JRE version number will help.
>>>> 
>>>> Will be changing the 2.x versions going forward or just the 3.0 ones?
>>>> i.e.
>>>> will jfx 2.2.4 be jfx 7u10?
>>>> 
>>>> What's with the shipping with 'JavaSE 9', I thought we were shipping
>>>> now,
>>>> and hoping to be fully integrated (i.e on the classpath) by Java 8.
>>>> Wishful
>>>> thinking?
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 12:35 PM, Richard Bair
>>>> <richard.bair at oracle.com>wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Now that JavaFX 2.2 is out the door, we are creating 2.2.2 repositories
>>>>> for the minor update due later this year, and the 8.0 repositories
>>>>> we'll be
>>>>> using for the release we had been calling 3.0. In essence, we felt that
>>>>> since we are shipping with JavaSE and plan (pending JCP approval) to
>>>>> become
>>>>> part of JavaSE 9, that we needed to get our version numbers in line
>>>>> with
>>>>> JavaSE. It can be quite confusing to explain to people, for example,
>>>>> that
>>>>> JavaFX 2.2.2 ships with JavaSE 7u8. Or I could ask, what version of
>>>>> JavaFX
>>>>> will ship with JavaSE 7u10? 2.2.4 is probably the right answer, but
>>>>> heck,
>>>>> even I don't always know.
>>>>> 
>>>>> So instead, we've decided to bump up the version number for the next
>>>>> major
>>>>> release in order to align with JavaSE. It makes double sense since
>>>>> we are
>>>>> aligned on release schedule as well.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>> Richard
>>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> B e s t S o l u t i o n . a t                        EDV Systemhaus GmbH
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> tom schindl                 geschäftsführer/CEO
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> eduard-bodem-gasse 5-7/1   A-6020 innsbruck     fax      ++43 512 935833
> http://www.BestSolution.at                      phone    ++43 512 935834