On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 18:58:25 GMT, Frederic Thevenet <ftheve...@openjdk.org> 
wrote:

>> It was a suggestion, so Kevin can choose not to change it.
>> 
>> Formally, OpenJFX N supports JDK N-1, so for 17 we should be able to use 
>> features from 16. It was decided a while back not to force-fail on older JDK 
>> versions and let it evolve naturally.
>> 
>> While in this case the change is small and might not be worth it alone, many 
>> of the recent language changes are geared towards better readability and 
>> reduction of possible mistakes, and we will be hurting ourselves in the long 
>> run if we don't pick those up. Every PR is relatively small and doesn't 
>> require the new features it can take advantage of, but if we go this way 
>> then we will be stuck with JDK 11 until something like Valhalla comes out.
>
>> Formally, OpenJFX N supports JDK N-1, so for 17 we should be able to use 
>> features from 16. It was decided a while back not to force-fail on older JDK 
>> versions and let it evolve naturally.
> 
> That's the bit of information I was missing, thanks.

Bumping the minimum version of the JDK that is required to run the current 
version of JavaFX requires prior discussion on the openjfx-dev mailing list and 
a separate JBS Enhancement, like we did when we bumped the minimum to JDK 11 
with [JDK-8209966](https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8209966) + 
[JDK-8210093](https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8210093). We wouldn't do 
it in connection with a bug fix such as this.

Having said that, I was already thinking that JavaFX 17 is a good time to 
consider bumping the minimum to allow using some of the newer JDK language 
features, so I'll start that discussion on the list soon.

-------------

PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jfx/pull/385

Reply via email to