Hi Paolo, the first phase should be done, I just didn't have time to double check everything, yet, due to my job related workload. I plan to do that till the end of the month. Then there will be a proposal about the phase 2.
Thank you very much for reminding me. Best regards, Tibor Dňa št 18. 9. 2025, 8:51 Paolo Bizzarri <[email protected]> napísal(a): > Hi Tibor, > > I am not sure which is the status for this much appreciated proposal. > > I can see that we had commits in drools and kogito runtimes about > supporting java 21, so maybe this has been already completed? > > Thanks again for all the effort. > > Regards > > Paolo > > > < > https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail > > > Privo > di virus.www.avast.com > < > https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail > > > <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> > > On Mon, Aug 4, 2025 at 3:03 PM Tibor Zimányi <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi everyone, > > > > thanks everyone for feedback! I see there are no objections to this and > > someone mentioned to me (I think Jason and Tiago) that if there are no > > objections, we don't need a vote. So if there will be no objections to > > continue with this without a vote until the end of today, I will let > people > > that are already involved in this task to start contributing by opening > PRs > > in the relevant repositories. > > > > For the PR checks, I will send a more detailed proposal for the Phase 2. > I > > think Phase 1 can happen without the need to change CI anyhow, as we want > > to target also Java 17 compatibility. I agree, it would be good to have > PR > > checks for both Java 17 and 21 in the future. It will be part of the > Phase > > 2 proposal. > > > > Best regards, > > Tibor > > > > On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 10:07 PM Jason Porter <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > I agree to this as well. I know it isn't ideal, but as Tiago stated > > > running PRs on both versions of Java is the only way to be sure we > don't > > > break one of the versions. > > > > > > On 2025/07/31 19:59:12 Tiago Bento wrote: > > > > I definitely agree that we need to move the code base to Java 21. > > > > Thanks Tibor for the proposal. Because we want to keep Java 17 being > > > > supported, I think our only guarantee would be to have builds running > > > > in both versions for PR checks. Otherwise we risk breaking one of the > > > > versions and only finding out when it's already too late. > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 7:39 AM Deepak Joseph < > > [email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > +1 I agree with this proposal to make code buildable and runnable > > with > > > Java > > > > > 21 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > Deepak Joseph > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 1:35 PM Yeser Amer <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for the clarification, +1 (and I'm available to help in > > > this > > > > > > effort) > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2025/07/31 07:52:36 Tibor Zimányi wrote: > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thanks for the feedback. It is basically as Francisco wrote. We > > > have > > > > > > Maven > > > > > > > properties configured with 17, but there was no coordinated > > effort > > > yet to > > > > > > > find out if everything works also on 21. This proposal is about > > > it. There > > > > > > > may be multiple things not working with 21, as e.g. mentioned > in > > > GWT, or > > > > > > > there may be some enforcer rules around jdks etc. This effort > > > should make > > > > > > > sure everything is buildable and runnable on both Java 21 and > > Java > > > 17. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For the PR checks, I think we can have a broader discussion if > we > > > agree > > > > > > on > > > > > > > this one and when we get to the point of starting the Phase 2. > I > > > am not > > > > > > > against having a Java 17 PR check, it may be useful. It just > > needs > > > to be > > > > > > > scoped properly (e.g. I expect not all PR checks are needed as > > > Java 17 > > > > > > ones > > > > > > > etc.). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hope that clarifies. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > Tibor > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 9:36 AM Yeser Amer <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At that moment, I experimented with GWT 2.10. Indeed it could > > be > > > worth > > > > > > > > trying again with 2.12, thank you for pointing that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2025/07/30 17:40:46 Dmitrii Tikhomirov wrote: > > > > > > > > > This is strange, because at present GWT’s minimum Java > > version > > > is 11, > > > > > > > > and the supported source level is 17. As far as I understand, > > it > > > should > > > > > > > > work with version 21 as well > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/gwtproject/gwt/releases/tag/2.12.0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 30, 2025, at 7:59 AM, Yeser Amer < > [email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right, it makes sense. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A point to share is that we have all GWT modules with > that > > > property > > > > > > > > set to JDK 8, because I failed to compile our GWT sources > with > > > any JDK > > > > > > 8+, > > > > > > > > when I tried some months ago. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2025/07/30 14:49:05 Francisco Javier Tirado Sarti > wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> I was going to say that, as far as I know, all modules > > > should be > > > > > > set > > > > > > > > to 17 > > > > > > > > > >> now. Anyway, the task is to verify that assumption is > > true. > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> On Wed, Jul 30, 2025 at 4:43 PM Yeser Amer < > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >>> Tibor, > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> Thank you for your initiative, can you please clarify: > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>>> Phase 1: > > > > > > > > > >>>> - Setting the release property: > > > > > > > > > >>>> <maven.compiler.release>17</maven.compiler.release>. > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> That means that we currently have some modules with JDK > > > version > > > > > > < 17, > > > > > > > > > >>> right? > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>>> Phase 2: > > > > > > > > > >>>> - Update the KIE CI to use Java 21 by default. This > > means: > > > > > > > > > >>>> - Making sure PR checks run with Java 21. > > > > > > > > > >>>> - Making sure the release builds run with Java 21. > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> If I understood correctly, we have to support both JDK > 17 > > > and > > > > > > JDK 21 > > > > > > > > for a > > > > > > > > > >>> while. Should we expect to have 2 subsets of PR Checks, > > > one that > > > > > > runs > > > > > > > > > >>> against JDK 17 and one that compiles against JDK 21 > > > (optaplanner > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > >>> correctly doing that against JDK 17 and 20)? > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> Thanks > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> Yeser > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> On 2025/07/30 11:54:23 Tibor Zimányi wrote: > > > > > > > > > >>>> Hi everyone, > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > >>>> as Java 21 is the latest Java LTS available, already > for > > > some > > > > > > time, > > > > > > > > I > > > > > > > > > >>> would > > > > > > > > > >>>> like to propose that the code should be buildable and > > > runnable > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > Java > > > > > > > > > >>>> 21, while still retaining compatibility with Java 17. > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > >>>> The work should be split into two phases like this: > > > > > > > > > >>>> Phase 1: > > > > > > > > > >>>> - Setting the release property: > > > > > > > > > >>>> <maven.compiler.release>17</maven.compiler.release>. > > > > > > > > > >>>> - This should make sure the code works with Java > 17. > > > > > > > > > >>>> - This should make sure that the existing CI still > > > works the > > > > > > > > same way > > > > > > > > > >>>> and is able to build releases etc., because even if we > > > have > > > > > > Java 17 > > > > > > > > as a > > > > > > > > > >>>> build environment, with the setting, it should work. > > > > > > > > > >>>> - Fixing the problems that occur while trying to build > > the > > > > > > > > repositories > > > > > > > > > >>>> with Java 21 and are caused by Java 21. > > > > > > > > > >>>> - Fixing the problems that occur while running tests > > with > > > Java > > > > > > 21 > > > > > > > > and are > > > > > > > > > >>>> caused by Java 21. > > > > > > > > > >>>> - Updating the images we publish and need JDK to > contain > > > JDK 21 > > > > > > > > instead > > > > > > > > > >>> of > > > > > > > > > >>>> 17. > > > > > > > > > >>>> - Target of the work are all Apache KIE repositories, > > > mainly: > > > > > > > > > >>>> incubator-kie-drools, incubator-kie-optaplanner, > > > > > > > > > >>>> incubator-kie-kogito-runtimes, > > incubator-kie-kogito-apps, > > > > > > > > > >>>> incubator-kie-kogito-examples, incubator-kie-tools. > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > >>>> Phase 2: > > > > > > > > > >>>> - Update the KIE CI to use Java 21 by default. This > > means: > > > > > > > > > >>>> - Making sure PR checks run with Java 21. > > > > > > > > > >>>> - Making sure the release builds run with Java 21. > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > >>>> What do you think, please? I plan to open a vote on > > Monday > > > > > > based on > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > >>>> feedback of this discussion. Finding people to do this > > > work is > > > > > > > > already > > > > > > > > > >>>> done, at least for Phase 1. > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > >>>> Best regards, > > > > > > > > > >>>> Tibor > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > > > > > > >>> For additional commands, e-mail: > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > > > > > >
