<html><body><div class="mail_android_quote" style="line-height: 1">+1, good idea.</div><div class="mail_android_quote" style="line-height: 1"><br></div><div class="mail_android_quote" style="line-height: 1">Moving from JDK 22 to JDK 23 seems pretty unproblematic, so I think most people out there should not have a problem with that either.</div><div class="mail_android_quote" style="line-height: 1"><br></div><div class="mail_android_quote" style="line-height: 1">Also +1 for the idea of setting the minimum version to JDK N-2 in the future.</div><div class="mail_android_quote" style="line-height: 1"><br></div><div class="mail_android_quote" style="line-height: 1">- Marius</div><div class="mail_android_quote" style="line-height: 1"><br><meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width"><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/vnd.ui.insecure+html;charset=utf-8"><div class="mail_android_quote" style="line-height: 1"><br>Am 17.06.25, 17:49 schrieb Kevin Rushforth <kevin.rushforth@<a href="http://oracle.com">oracle.com</a>>:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0.8ex 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
All,<br>
<br>
Even though we build JavaFX 25 binaries with JDK 23 (which is being <br>
updated to JDK 24 this week), as the boot JDK, the latest version of <br>
JavaFX still runs with JDK 22, although it isn't tested with older JDK <br>
versions.<br>
<br>
In order for JavaFX to be able to use more recent JDK features, we <br>
should increase the minimum version of the JDK that can run the latest <br>
JavaFX. Additionally, there is an ongoing cost to keeping JavaFX <br>
buildable and runnable on older versions of Java, and little reason to <br>
continue to do so.<br>
<br>
I propose to bump the minimum version of the JDK needed to run JavaFX 25 <br>
to JDK 23. I further propose to adopt a standard practice of setting the <br>
minimum JDK for JavaFX N to JDK N-2. JavaFX N is primarily intended for <br>
use with JDK N; we also build and test it against JDK N-1 (which is <br>
typically what we use as the boot JDK). Anything older than that, <br>
including the proposed minimum JDK N-2 (23 in this specific case), is <br>
untested.<br>
<br>
I filed JDK-8359387 [1] to track this and prepared PR #1827 [2]. This <br>
will *not* affect update releases of earlier versions of JavaFX (e.g., <br>
JavaFX 24.0.NN or JavaFX 21.0.NN), which will continue to run with the <br>
same minimum JDK that they run on today.<br>
<br>
Note: in keeping with the "tip and tail" model [3], developers who want <br>
to run their application on an LTS of the JDK should also get a <br>
corresponding LTS of JavaFX.<br>
<br>
Comments are welcome.<br>
<br>
-- Kevin<br>
<br>
[1] <a href="https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8359387">https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8359387</a><br>
[2] <a href="https://github.com/openjdk/jfx/pull/1827">https://github.com/openjdk/jfx/pull/1827</a><br>
[3] <a href="https://openjdk.org/jeps/14">https://openjdk.org/jeps/14</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote></div></div></body></html>