groovy-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au>
Subject Re: GroovyFX.next
Date Thu, 10 Dec 2020 21:44:07 GMT
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 <aalmiray@gmail.com> 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.
>

Mime
View raw message