18 month release cycle..

[Pedro Duque Vieira]

Ok, I understand the trade off. Hope Oracle fixes the JCP than :)

Best regards,

On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 8:54 PM, Richard Bair <richard.bair at oracle.com>wrote:

> That is a JCP issue. If JavaFX never becomes part of the standard, then we
> limit reach, but can have quicker release cycles. If JavaFX becomes part of
> the standard, we get better reach but longer release cycles (for features).
> Of course bug fixes can go into update releases. We are aiming for
> something like Java 9 for standardization so that by the time we get there
> we'll be able to handle the longer cycles. Short of "fixing" the JCP, I'm
> not sure there are any good alternatives.
>
> On Jun 20, 2012, at 8:20 AM, Pedro Duque Vieira wrote:
>
> >>
> >> ...Unlike the JDK, our code doesn't yet require JSR or JCP approvals.
> That
> >> is why we were aiming for making JavaFX a part of standard Java in Java
> 9
> >> timeframe so that by the time we got there FX would be mature enough to
> be
> >> able to handle 18month release cycles between new features (for anything
> >> that is part of JavaSE, you can only add new API on major releases,
> whereas
> >> since FX is not yet part of the Java specification, we can make updates
> any
> >> time)...
> >>
> >
> >
> > Hi Richard,
> >
> > Sorry to meddle in the conversation..
> > 18 month for a release cycle? That sounds like too much, even for
> something
> > that is mature. I think one of the big advantages of javafx is it's short
> > release cycle.
> >
> > Thanks, best regards,
> >
> > --
> > Pedro Duque Vieira
>
>


-- 
Pedro Duque Vieira