[External] : Re: Minimum JDK policy for OpenJFX

[Kevin Rushforth]

I missed seeing this reply yesterday. We can't bump the minimum to JDK 
17 until at least JavaFX 18 without changing our policy that JavaFX N is 
able to build and run with JDK N-1. If we were to change that we would 
also need to delay our release to be after JDK 17 date (currently JavaFX 
N is released a week ahead of JDK N). Also, there are technical 
challenges building with the JDK 17 EA as a moving target (at least for 
the next few weeks) that we would need to deal with. In summary, I would 
not want to propose this.

-- Kevin


On 5/18/2021 8:33 AM, Michael Strauß wrote:
> Sounds good, although it is a bit unfortunate that sealed classes will
> only be un-previewed in JDK 17. I think this feature has great value
> for reasoning about code, in particular for library development. Do
> you think we could bump it directly to JDK 17, which I think is very
> fitting because it's the next LTS release, after all.
>
> Am Di., 18. Mai 2021 um 17:17 Uhr schrieb Kevin Rushforth
> <kevin.rushforth at oracle.com>:
>> 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?