Fabrizio is correct. Technically JavaFX code will run on any Java 1.5 runtime. We use 1.5 bytecode and the internal usage of 1.6 api will correctly degrade. However, the user experience is vastly better on recent versions of 1.6, so we encourage it's use. I believe (though I haven't checked lately), that the dtfx.js javascript which generates the applet tags will require you to upgrade from anything lower than 6u7 if you are on Windows. I suspect there will be a day when we drop 1.5 altogether and go 1.6 only, since 1.6 itself is several years old at this point.
- Josh On Jul 23, 2009, at 5:05 AM, Fabrizio Giudici wrote: > > Steven Herod wrote: >> It doesn't require 6u10. It'll run on any version of Java 1.5 or >> higher. Infact Netbeans JavaFX support is 'hardcoded' to use Java >> 1.5. >> >> The big difference is user experience, as 6u10 introduced the new >> browser plugin which offered faster startup and the ability to drag >> applets out of the browser. >> >> I also think it included the JavaFX runtime in the distribution, if I >> recall correctly, which means that 6u10 users didn't need to wait for >> the JavaFX runtime to be downloaded on first JavaFX app startup. >> >> I don't think this JavaFX + JRE bundling has included, I don't recall >> a new JRE coming out when JavaFX 1.2 came out. >> >> Certainly there is no dependancy between releases of the two. >> > > AFAIK this is not entirely correct. If you look at the official system > requirements: > > http://java.sun.com/javafx/1/reference/system-requirements-1-2.html#javafxsdk > > the current minimal JDK version for running JavaFX 1.2 is 6u13 (for > Windows, Linux, OpenSolaris), and 1.5.0_16 for Mac OS X. Beyond what > you > said about 6u10, which is correct, you also have to consider bugs and > enhancements made in the Java2D core for fitting JavaFX, that require > these minimal requirements. The reason for which JavaFX "tolerates" > Java > 5 on the Mac is because, thanks to the wonderful and friendly Apple's > policy about Java, it is still not possible (and I don't think it will > be ever possible) to run Java 6 on PPC and Intel 32 machines (and > there > is still a big deal around). I suppose there are some specific > workarounds for Java 5 in this case (and possibly some penalties), but > it has been a good move to avoid killing a good number of client > platform. I have no doubts that if Apple supported Java 6 on all of > his > reasonably recent machinery, Sun would have required Java 6 > everywhere. > > -- > Fabrizio Giudici - Java Architect, Project Manager > Tidalwave s.a.s. - "We make Java work. Everywhere." > weblogs.java.net/blog/fabriziogiudici - www.tidalwave.it/blog > fabrizio.giud...@tidalwave.it - mobile: +39 348.150.6941 > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to javaposse@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
