search

ReactiveX / RxJavaFX

RxJava bindings for JavaFX
Apache License 2.0
519 stars 67 forks source link

JavaFX 11 Planning #70

Closed thomasnield closed 6 years ago

thomasnield commented 6 years ago

I've not kept up with Java 9/10 releases and chose to align RxJavaFX with TorndoFX's approach of waiting for Java 11.

@protogenes has already started filing issues and PR's, and I know other libraries have already transitioned as well.

I'm going to try my best to get RxJavaFX moved to Java 11 in the next few weeks.

thomasnield commented 6 years ago

For reference: http://docs.gluonhq.com/javafx11/#introduction

thomasnield commented 6 years ago

Proposed version number convention for Java 11 build will be 2.11.x.

For Java 8, it will shift to 2.8.x.

I'd prefer to keep the major version number pegged to RxJava.

thomasnield commented 6 years ago

Migration to Java 11 is successful. This version can be seen on 2.11.x branch. I'm going to review other issues and see if I can get other requests implemented before release.

brainbytes42 commented 2 years ago

Hi,

two short remarks on versioning, as I was just evaluating the current state and dependencies of RxJava and RxJavaFX for a new and some existing projects:

It seems, RxJavaFx 2.11.x is on track with RxJava 3.x as of this commit (https://github.com/ReactiveX/RxJavaFX/commit/74aa7e0f7633abb01070c4e820dc4097faf535bd), but the major version wasn't updated as planned in the comment above (https://github.com/ReactiveX/RxJavaFX/issues/70#issuecomment-420409071)?

I'd prefer to keep the major version number pegged to RxJava. Maybe it would be good to fix this, as I was a little sad at first, not to be able to use RxJava3 with this really nice JavaFx-Interoperability.

Second remark: I'm (still) stuck with Java 8 for some projects, as of company requirements... Even there, I could use RxJava3, but not with RxJavaFX 2.8.x, as this hasn't been raised to RxJava 3.x as far as I can see. I don't know how high the effort would be to have a RxJavaFX 3.8.x version? From the commit above, it seems manageable...? ;-) At least, it would match RxJava's target-compatibility, which is Java 8 for v3...