Modules are really far away in the future (IMHO). As per my understanding, we could think about real modules only when all our dependencies are modularized, which would take quite a lot of time I suppose. The Reactive Streams part is really appealing *BUT* even there we **could** keep the same master for 8 and 9 (http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/238).
Honestly, I am not 100% sure we have to branch off the new master and keep it Java 9 only right now. May be the good moment will be when we discountinue 3.1.x so at least the code will be much easier to cherry-pick? Best Regards, Andriy Redko CS> I am not sure sure about the need for Java 9 modules. Currently I see no CS> user requesting this. It is also not yet fully clear how these modules CS> behave in OSGi. As far as I understood as soon as we start with this we CS> have code that is not working in Java 8. As we require every change to be CS> done in master first this means we have a lot of back port work. A Java 9 CS> only master will also make it much harder for Java 8 users to supply pull CS> requests as they have to develop and test on java 9 which is not their CS> production system. CS> So I think the current situation with a master that works on Java 9 and CS> Java 8 is a pretty good situation that we should keep for as long as CS> possible. CS> I am not sure how attractive the other Java 9 features are. Personally I CS> were really eager to adopt Java 8 because of the closures but I see no real CS> need for myself to rush to java 9. CS> When I remember how reluctant we were when it came to adopting the previous CS> java versions like 7 and 8 as minimal requirement I think it makes sense to CS> do this rather slowly. CS> Christian CS> 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 CS> --
