<html><head></head><body><div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;"><div>I've been thinking about this for a few weeks and agree with the general consensus.</div>
<div>For me personally, it will make things more tricky as big customers (that usually have their own IT department) stick to 'LTS' versions and there is not too much you can do against that (I tried).</div>
<div>Sometimes there are also tools or other things that block a possible migration.</div>
<div>
<div><br type="_moz"/>
That being said, I fully understand the need to upgrade and that we need to prepare JFX for the JDK changes because there is work to be done.<br/>
I think it's quite unreasonable to wait just because some companies don't understand the LTS concept at all or are unwilling to do so.<br/>
Even if it makes my life more difficult for some projects.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>So a +1 from me.</div>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div>-- Marius
<div>
<div name="quote" style="margin:10px 5px 5px 10px; padding: 10px 0 10px 10px; border-left:2px solid #C3D9E5; word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">
<div style="margin:0 0 10px 0;"><b>Gesendet:</b> Mittwoch, 02. Oktober 2024 um 16:45 Uhr<br/>
<b>Von:</b> "Kevin Rushforth" <kevin.rushforth@oracle.com><br/>
<b>An:</b> "openjfx-dev" <openjfx-dev@openjdk.org><br/>
<b>Betreff:</b> Proposal: Bump minimum JDK for JavaFX 24 to JDK 22</div>
<div name="quoted-content">All,<br/>
<br/>
Even though we build JavaFX 24 binaries with JDK 22 (and soon will build<br/>
with JDK 23) as the boot JDK, the latest version of JavaFX still runs<br/>
with JDK 21, although it isn't tested with older JDK versions. In order<br/>
for JavaFX to be able to use newer JDK features, such as FFM (Panama),<br/>
we need to increase the minimum version of the JDK that can run the<br/>
latest JavaFX. Additionally, there is an ongoing cost to keeping JavaFX<br/>
buildable and runnable on older versions of Java, and very little reason<br/>
to continue to do so.<br/>
<br/>
To this end, I propose to bump the minimum version of the JDK needed to<br/>
run JavaFX 24 to JDK 22. I filed JDK-8340003 [1] to track this and<br/>
prepared Draft PR #1588 [2]. This will *not* affect update releases of<br/>
earlier versions of JavaFX (e.g., JavaFX 23.0.NN or JavaFX 21.0.NN),<br/>
which will continue to run with the same minimum JDK that they run on today.<br/>
<br/>
The main driver for this is that we need to convert the memory<br/>
management methods used by Marlin from sun.misc.Unsafe to something<br/>
else, both for Java2D and JavaFX, and the natural choice is to use FFM<br/>
(Panama), which is what will be done for Java2D. We want to do the same<br/>
for JavaFX, which requires bumping the minimum to JDK 22. See<br/>
JDK-8334137 [3].<br/>
<br/>
NOTE: this will not be an invitation to do wholesale refactoring of<br/>
existing classes or methods to use newer language features (e.g., a PR<br/>
that refactors existing switch statements and switch expressions into<br/>
pattern-matching switch expressions would not be welcome). Rather, this<br/>
can be seen as enabling judicious use of new features in new code, much<br/>
as we did when we started allowing the use of "var", records, and<br/>
pattern-matching instanceof.<br/>
<br/>
As a reminder, our stated position is that: A) we ensure that JavaFX N<br/>
runs on JDK N-1 or later; and B) we encourage developers to use JDK N to<br/>
run JavaFX N. It follows from this that if developers want to run their<br/>
application on an LTS of the JDK, they should also get a corresponding<br/>
LTS of JavaFX.<br/>
<br/>
Up until now we've been pretty conservative about bumping the minimum<br/>
JDK version, and we've chosen an LTS version. However, this has never<br/>
been a hard requirement nor guarantee; whether or not the minimum<br/>
happens to be an LTS should not be consideration. In the future, we<br/>
could consider bumping the minimum version more automatically to, say,<br/>
JDK N-2, which could be done fairly shortly after the fork for each new<br/>
feature release. This proposal doesn't do that, but we could have a<br/>
follow-on discussion as to whether to consider that.<br/>
<br/>
Comments are welcome.<br/>
<br/>
-- Kevin<br/>
<br/>
[1] <a href="https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8340003" target="_blank">https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8340003</a><br/>
[2] <a href="https://github.com/openjdk/jfx/pull/1588" target="_blank">https://github.com/openjdk/jfx/pull/1588</a><br/>
[3] <a href="https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8334137" target="_blank">https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8334137</a></div>
</div>
</div>
</div></div></body></html>