Binary compatibility would be the ideal, but failing that, I think we need to find a path forward with some compromises. A JDK11 minimum but retaining source code compatibility would be the next ideal from my point of view.
Cheers, Paul. On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 7:04 AM Andres Almiray <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello everyone, > > A question for those of you still using GroovyFX or willing to give it a > try: > > As you may be aware JavaFX8 and JavaFX9 are binary incompatible due to > package updates. It's a bit troublesome for library makers to keep a > project compatible with JavaFX8 and JavaFX9+ (as a matter of fact I'd Say > skip JavaFX9 & 10, use 11 as the base instead as it's LTS). > > The question is: > - Do you need JavaFX 8 compatibility? In other words, can you move to > JavaFX11 as a minimum? > > Cheers, > Andres > > ------------------------------------------- > Java Champion; Groovy Enthusiast > http://andresalmiray.com > http://www.linkedin.com/in/aalmiray > -- > What goes up, must come down. Ask any system administrator. > There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, > and those who don't. > To understand recursion, we must first understand recursion. >
