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
