Proposal: Bump minimum JDK version for JavaFX 23 to JDK 21

[Kevin Rushforth]

This is unrelated to the discussion of bumping the minimum version to 
JDK 21, since we can already use switch expressions (they were added in 
JDK 14, which is below the current minimum of JDK 17).

I recommend starting a  new thread if you would like to discuss this.

-- Kevin


On 2/20/2024 8:16 AM, Andy Goryachev wrote:
>
> +1
>
> I would like to put forth an opinion that we should NOT use 
> non-comprehensive switch expressions over enums, as they introduce a 
> major incompatibility when evolving that enum (i.e. when adding new 
> values).
>
> Consider this:
>
> enum E { A, B }
>
> E e;
>
> switch(e) {
>
> case A -> "a";
>
> case B -> "b";
>
> }
>
> evolving to
>
> enum A { A, B, C };
>
> previously comprehensive switch expression explodes.
>
> -andy
>
> *From: *openjfx-dev <openjfx-dev-retn at openjdk.org> on behalf of Kevin 
> Rushforth <kevin.rushforth at oracle.com>
> *Date: *Friday, February 16, 2024 at 14:12
> *To: *openjfx-dev <openjfx-dev at openjdk.org>
> *Subject: *Proposal: Bump minimum JDK version for JavaFX 23 to JDK 21
>
> All,
>
> Even though we build JavaFX binaries with JDK 21 as the boot JDK, the
> latest version of JavaFX still runs with JDK 17, although it isn't
> tested with older JDK versions. In order for JavaFX to be able to use
> newer JDK features, such as code snippets (in API docs), record
> patterns, pattern matching for switch statements, and so forth, we need
> to increase the minimum version of the JDK that can run the latest
> JavaFX. Additionally, there is an ongoing cost to keeping JavaFX
> buildable and runnable on older versions of Java, and very little reason
> to continue to do so.
>
> A question was raised [1] as to whether we should go even further and,
> once JDK 22 is released, jump straight to JDK 22 as a minimum. While we
> could do that, I feel that there isn't sufficient justification for this
> at this time, although we could reconsider for next release.
>
> To this end, I propose to bump the minimum version of the JDK needed to
> run JavaFX 23 to JDK 21. I filed JDK-8321603 [2] to track this and
> prepared PR  #1370 [3] (I've moved the PR back to Draft, pending this
> discussion). This will not affect update releases of earlier versions of
> JavaFX (e.g., JavaFX 21.0.NN or JavaFX 17.0.NN), which will continue to
> run with the same minimum JDK that they run on today.
>
> As a reminder, we only assure that JavaFX NN will run with JDK NN-1 or
> later, although in practice, we don't bump the minimum required JDK
> version without a good reason. For example, while JavaFX 22 is built
> using JDK 21 as the boot JDK, it produces class files that will run with
> JDK 17, using "--release 17". The proposed change discussed here would
> update that in JavaFX 23 to "--release 21".
>
> NOTE: this will not be an invitation to do wholesale refactoring of
> existing classes or methods to use newer language features (e.g., a PR
> that refactors existing switch statements and switch expressions into
> pattern-matching switch expressions would not be welcome). Rather, this
> can be seen as enabling judicious use of new features in new code, much
> as we did when we started allowing the use of "var", records, and
> pattern-matching instanceof.
>
> Comments are welcome.
>
> -- Kevin
>
> [1] 
> https://mail.openjdk.org/pipermail/openjfx-dev/2023-December/044081.html
> [2] https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8321603
> [3] https://github.com/openjdk/jfx/pull/1370
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.openjdk.org/pipermail/openjfx-dev/attachments/20240220/be5c6449/attachment-0001.htm>