2017-11-17 4:40 GMT+01:00 Jeff Genender <jgenen...@apache.org>: > > > > On Nov 16, 2017, at 6:02 AM, Christian Schneider < > ch...@die-schneider.net> wrote: > > > > I am not sure sure about the need for Java 9 modules. Currently I see no > > user requesting this. > > We need a user to request it? Whats wrong with us looking in a crystal > ball? Doesn’t one of our own committers count as a user requesting it? >
Absolutely Sergeys request is surely valid. I just fear the additional overhead and that a java 9 master might prevent some java 8 developers from supplying patches as they would be forced to develop on java 9. So I completely agree that we will have a java 9 master at some point .. The question is only when. My approach to this is to switch as late as possible while still allowing us to explore java 9. > > > It is also not yet fully clear how these modules > > behave in OSGi. > > They are just jars with manifests, no? I would believe they would both > operate based on their own manifest file contents. Let stay it and find > out. ;-). No harm no foul. > Yes. I completely agree to try this. I would rather experiment with this in a side branch though. The ideal solution would be a jar that is both a java 9 module and a regular java 8 jar. Not sure if that works though. If Dans assumption is right that all our deps must be JAva 9 modules before we switch this will take quite a while anyway. So I think the right time to switch to add java 9 modules is when all dependencies are modules. For other java 9 features we might want to provide support earlier though. > > > > > 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. > > > > But others do use it. I'm one of those who did go all in JDK 9… call me a > cutting edge person. ;-). I have people asking me all the time about this. > Different strokes for different folks. ;-) > > > 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. > > And what did that reluctancy buy us except people wondering what is taking > so long. Why not get ahead of the curve this time instead of being > dinosaurs and the last ones to the table. > > Whats the harm in doing it? Its just a git repo that has zero impact on > the Java 8 code base. Everything will feed it as an upstream code base. > The harm is that every change in CXF will be coded and tested on the Java 9 master first then. Additionally it would need to be backported to the older branches. So we would force all CXF developers to switch to Java 9. This is the price and it will be especially high while most people are still on Java 8. On the other hand the gain is that Java 9 developers can already work with Java 9 features. At the start this gain is very low. It will grow over time when people migrate to Java 9. So the question is simply when there is the right time for this switch. Christian -- -- 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
