+1
On 16/02/2024 23:11, Kevin Rushforth wrote:
All,
Even though we build JavaFX binaries with JDK 21 as the boot JDK, the
latest version of JavaFX still runs with JDK 17, although it isn't
tested with older JDK versions. In order for JavaFX to be able to use
newer JDK features, such as code snippets (in API docs), record
patterns, pattern matching for switch statements, and so forth, we
need to increase the minimum version of the JDK that can run the
latest JavaFX. Additionally, there is an ongoing cost to keeping
JavaFX buildable and runnable on older versions of Java, and very
little reason to continue to do so.
A question was raised [1] as to whether we should go even further and,
once JDK 22 is released, jump straight to JDK 22 as a minimum. While
we could do that, I feel that there isn't sufficient justification for
this at this time, although we could reconsider for next release.
To this end, I propose to bump the minimum version of the JDK needed
to run JavaFX 23 to JDK 21. I filed JDK-8321603 [2] to track this and
prepared PR #1370 [3] (I've moved the PR back to Draft, pending this
discussion). This will not affect update releases of earlier versions
of JavaFX (e.g., JavaFX 21.0.NN or JavaFX 17.0.NN), which will
continue to run with the same minimum JDK that they run on today.
As a reminder, we only assure that JavaFX NN will run with JDK NN-1 or
later, although in practice, we don't bump the minimum required JDK
version without a good reason. For example, while JavaFX 22 is built
using JDK 21 as the boot JDK, it produces class files that will run
with JDK 17, using "--release 17". The proposed change discussed here
would update that in JavaFX 23 to "--release 21".
NOTE: this will not be an invitation to do wholesale refactoring of
existing classes or methods to use newer language features (e.g., a PR
that refactors existing switch statements and switch expressions into
pattern-matching switch expressions would not be welcome). Rather,
this can be seen as enabling judicious use of new features in new
code, much as we did when we started allowing the use of "var",
records, and pattern-matching instanceof.
Comments are welcome.
-- Kevin
[1]
https://mail.openjdk.org/pipermail/openjfx-dev/2023-December/044081.html
[2] https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8321603
[3] https://github.com/openjdk/jfx/pull/1370
