Don't know of any libraries but what you described sounds simple enough to not have to look for any library. A rule is a map with at least an :action key that says what must be done if the rule matches. Other keys tell what to match against and how. A collection of rules is a vector. The last item in there is a a map with only the :action key so it's matched against anything. The collection is checked in order, the traversal stops at the first match. The only tricky part is sending the rules over the wire, but how tricky it is depends on the actions.

This might work. https://github.com/oakes/odoyle-rules

This most likely will work, but it's a full-on rule system that one has to learn. This particular case seems simple enough where implementing it on your own is both faster and easier than learning and using a rule system. Unless, of course, the OP wants to learn about such a system.

I would recommend using the Clara rules engine. It's not that difficult to start using, and there is one thing about the business rules: they always grow and surpass the capabilities of each homegrown solution.

This part is interesting, emphasis mine: > Additionally, there is an ongoing cost to keeping JavaFX buildable and runnable on older versions of Java, and little reason to continue to do so. I wonder why they think that.

yeah, no idea what is that about

I think the "little reason" for backwards compatibility is wrong, but no idea about costs to keeping JavaFX buildable. I see it just like they want the new fancy stuff on their code base and there is no deep thinking about the impact of their changes. An aspect I love about Clojure itself and its ecosystem

Are they assuming that if you're on an older version of Java, you'll stay using the older version of the library? In other words, if you don't update your JDK very often, you probably also don't update your dependencies either.

No clue what the current situation is, but at least around 8 years ago some companies were stuck with an older JDK due to their support contract.

Are they assuming that if you're on an older version of Java, you'll stay using the older version of the library?I think for making something like that work, for critical things, they need to keep patching and releasing patch versions of the previous major versions, which they do to some extent. But to me looks much more work than staying jdk backwards compatible for a little longer. For this particular example of breaking maven I'm not sure if some day they will release a patched version of javafx 22 or force users to move to 23, which requires jdk 21