since it's a good practice to define java version explicitely, to avoid any 
misunderstanding, I'm not sure changing default value is really something 
important: what's important it to know that it costs only 2 properties (and 
eventually merge them)

notice that if we change default value, I want to see a table in the plugin 
documentation showing which version of the plugin has which default java 
version

because the immense benefit I see currently is that it's always the same

Regards,

Hervé

Le samedi 7 novembre 2015 08:28:51 Anders Hammar a écrit :
> Just to clarify, it's Oracle's JDK 1.7 that is EOL. IBM still supports
> their Java 6 and 7 level JDKs.
> 
> Moving to a 1.7 default is still ok I think. However, if we think that most
> people will still need to configure 1.8 (or 1.9 soon) I don't see the point
> of doing this as it does introduce a level of incompatibility for those
> still using Java 6 or earlier. The default could then stay at 1.5.
> 
> /Anders
> 
> On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 10:30 PM, Karl Heinz Marbaise <[email protected]>
> 
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > -1 to 1.8
> > +1 to 1.7
> > 
> > so we already jump over 1.6 as default which is absolutely ok...
> > 
> > Kind regards
> > Karl Heinz Marbaise
> > 
> > On 11/6/15 10:17 PM, Christopher wrote:
> >> +1 to at least 1.7
> >> 
> >> However, since 1.7 is EOL, I do think it also makes sense to default
> >> to 1.8, since it's the earliest version still getting public security
> >> updates, and therefore it's reasonable that most people should be
> >> using that version if possible. It's a trivial matter to configure the
> >> plugin for an earlier version if the software needs to be built to
> >> support a system that's not updated. These systems can (and probably
> >> already are) using older versions of this plugin anyway, so changing
> >> the default in newer versions isn't likely to affect them.
> >> 
> >> But, at the very least, 1.7 is a big +1, incremental improvement to the
> >> default.
> >> 
> >> --
> >> Christopher L Tubbs II
> >> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> >> 
> >> 
> >> On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Gary Gregory <[email protected]>
> >> 
> >> wrote:
> >>> +1 for 1.7.
> >>> 
> >>> Gary
> >>> 
> >>> On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 4:56 AM, Attila-Mihály Balázs <[email protected]
> >>> 
> >>> wrote:
> >>> 
> >>> Hello,
> >>> 
> >>>> Given that we're almost in 2015, what do people think about updating
> >>>> the
> >>>> default source / target for maven-compiler-plugin to 1.8? (And also on
> >>>> the
> >>>> site:
> >>>> 
> >>>> https://maven.apache.org/plugins/maven-compiler-plugin/examples/set-com
> >>>> piler-source-and-target.html ).
> >>>> 
> >>>> If there is interest, I'm happy to submit a patch!
> >>>> 
> >>>> Cheers,
> >>>> Attila Balazs (Grey Panther)
> >>>> 
> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>> 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]

Reply via email to