JavaFX 8.0

[Daniel Zwolenski]

Can I suggest a rename of Lombard to something like version8.0. It would make it clearer. 

The voting mechanism has been largely ignored by the jfx team in the past. Are you guys starting to use this now? 

I think it would great if it were made  a key influencer in what gets fixed. A great first step would be to have the top rated issues on the default jira dashboard (if it hasn't been added yet). I have this on my dashboard but I had to add it manually. 



On 16/08/2012, at 11:57 PM, Joe McGlynn <joe.mcglynn at oracle.com> wrote:

> Lombard == FX 8.0
> 
> Having the fix version set to Lombard does not guarantee it will be fix in the release of course.  If it's important please vote on it, add comments to help clarify why it's important, provide a simple reproducer for the problem, etc.
> 
> 
> -- 
> <image001.gif>
> 
> 
> Joe McGlynn | Senior Software Manager
> Phone: +1 4082763383 | Mobile: +1 8312399494 
> Oracle Java Platform
> 4220 Network Circle | Santa Clara, CA 95054
> Skype: joebmcglynn
> <image002.gif>
> 
> Oracle is committed to developing practices and products that help protect the environment
>  
> 
> On Aug 16, 2012, at 6:51 AM, Daniel Zwolenski <zonski at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Excellent. Thanks. 
>> 
>> Just while we're on the version/release topic, does "fix: Lombard" in jira stil mean "not for the foreseeable future" or is it a code name for a specific release version?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 16/08/2012, at 11:39 PM, Kevin Rushforth <kevin.rushforth at oracle.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Putting jfxrt.jar on the default classpath is planned for JDK8 / FX8.
>>> 
>>> -- Kevin
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Daniel Zwolenski wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> 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.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Cool but my real question is when will JFX be put on the classpath as part
>>>> of the install of the JRE - will it be 7, 8 or 9? :)
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> -- 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
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>