I am not sure sure about the need for Java 9 modules. Currently I see no user requesting this. It is also not yet fully clear how these modules behave in OSGi. As far as I understood as soon as we start with this we have code that is not working in Java 8. As we require every change to be done in master first this means we have a lot of back port work. A Java 9 only master will also make it much harder for Java 8 users to supply pull requests as they have to develop and test on java 9 which is not their production system.
So I think the current situation with a master that works on Java 9 and Java 8 is a pretty good situation that we should keep for as long as possible. I am not sure how attractive the other Java 9 features are. Personally I were really eager to adopt Java 8 because of the closures but I see no real need for myself to rush to java 9. When I remember how reluctant we were when it came to adopting the previous java versions like 7 and 8 as minimal requirement I think it makes sense to do this rather slowly. Christian 2017-11-16 13:31 GMT+01:00 Sergey Beryozkin <sberyoz...@gmail.com>: > Hi Andriy > > I'm only presuming that yes, a Java 9 only master would have to support > the new Java 9 modules system, so I'd say a lot of exciting work would > await for the CXF dev community :-) > > Cheers, Sergey > > On 16/11/17 12:19, Andriy Redko wrote: > >> Hey Sergey, >> >> Do we have a goal to support Java 9 modules (aka Jigsaw) for >> the new master branch? Or we just looking to benefit from the >> latest changes in stardand library (as you mentioned, Flow & Co, >> collections are also a good example)? Is our current master JDK9 >> compatible actually (haven't seen successfull builds from >> https://builds.apache.org/job/CXF-Master-JDK9) ? >> >> Best Regards, >> Andriy Redko >> >> SB> It's pretty simple really. It's about having a new impetus for the CXF >> SB> development. >> >> SB> Without a Java 9 only master CXF will be about fixing the bugs only. >> SB> JAX-WS is done long time ago, next version of JAX-RS will take N >> amount >> SB> of time to materialize. >> >> SB> Java 9 with its Flow class will let CXF do new work around Reactive >> SB> support. It will have new features that only work with Java 9 and may >> SB> give new ideas for the contributions. >> >> SB> 3.2.x is at the start of its life-cycle and will have a couple of >> years >> SB> at least for it to retire, giving Java 8 support. >> >> SB> 3.1.x has probably 6 months or so left in it, and after it's gone we >> SB> will have 3.2.x and 4.0.x or whatever new version is preferred. >> >> SB> Sergey >> SB> On 16/11/17 08:15, Dennis Kieselhorst wrote: >> >>> On 2017-11-16 07:27, Christian Schneider <ch...@die-schneider.net> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I dont think we can already predict when users move to Java 9. >>>>> So creating a Java 9 only branch at this time means we have to >>>>> maintain two >>>>> main branches over a long time. >>>>> >>>>> What is the rationale behind a Java 9 only branch compared to being >>>>> Java 9 >>>>> and Java 8 compatible on master? >>>>> >>>> >>>> I also don't see a good reason to do that at the moment. Let's release >>>> the XJC plugin and users should be able to use CXF with Java 9 or am I >>>> missing something? >>>> >>>> Cheers >>>> Dennis >>>> >>>> >> -- -- Christian Schneider http://www.liquid-reality.de <https://owa.talend.com/owa/redir.aspx?C=3aa4083e0c744ae1ba52bd062c5a7e46&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.liquid-reality.de> Computer Scientist http://www.adobe.com
