On 2 December 2015 at 09:07, Fred Cooke <fred.co...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "You can run maven with Java 8 right now, so it is not a change in any way > for those users." > > This equates to ruling out developers who are forced to use older JDKs/JREs > if you look at it the other way. > Actually you are misusing my argument. My point there was whether a bump to Java 8 should be a bump in major or minor version number. What I am saying is that you can argue that it isn't a major change because our API remains compatible and we are just removing JVMs that are no longer supported. > > "I agree that jumping to Java 8 would be unwise. I think we can wait until > 4.x. Don’t get me wrong, I’d prefer to use Java 8 and I do for almost > everything else but I don’t think there’s any dire rush." > > As per usual, Jason has it right, IMO. > > Don't forget Maven is a tool, and as with libs, the decision to push > everything above you upward is a dangerous one. As far as tools go in J > land, they don't come much more foundational than Maven. > There are two points I would like to make: 1. If you and your team have a need for a Java 6 or 7 version of Maven, please step up and continue to maintain those versions. We are not going to drop support in the plugins (where most of the stuff matters) for Java 6 any time soon... and if you are in a restricted environment you likely cannot pick up new features easily anyway... CALL TO ACTION: We need people prepared to maintain the older release lines 2. Think of the plugins in 2-3 years. Right now, to build a plugin and test it against the supported lines I sometimes have to go and set up a VM running an old version of linux and then pull a JDK 1.5 from the archive on oracle's download site because the installer doesn't work on newer versions of linux and there is no installer on my primary development platform... Similarly I need to do dancing games with older versions of windows... Now roll forward 2-3 years... will I be similarly constrained to get a Java 7? At least Java 8 is supported until September 2017... we can expect that it will be somewhat easy to get a Java 8 for most platforms for at least another 6-12 months before you start to hit the need for running VMs... the longer we put off updating the baseline JDK *in core* the worse the pain will be in 2-3 years for us when developing and maintaining our plugins > > Regards, > > Fred. > > On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 9:38 PM, Stephen Connolly < > stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > If we look at our JVM company history, IIRC > > > > 2.0 = Java 1.4 > > 2.1 = Java 1.4 > > 2.2 = Java 1.5 > > 3.0 = Java 1.5 > > 3.1 = Java 1.6 > > 3.2 = Java 1.6 > > 3.3 = Java 1.7 > > > > (I may have the jump versions out as this is from memory on my phone) > > > > So historically we have viewed bumping the minimum Java version as a > minor > > change. The only strong argument I can see for running with 4.0 is to > align > > the modelVersion... On the other hand actually having a maven version > > number that matches the modelVersion might cause confusion in users... > The > > "oh this is moselVersion 4.0.0 so you need to use at least Maven 4"... On > > the one hand, great for adoption and we will want that for modelVersion > > 5.0.0... On the other hand it gives a false impression... > > > > So the question really becomes how intrinsic a part of the maven API is > the > > baseline Java version. > > > > You can run maven with Java 8 right now, so it is not a change in any way > > for those users. > > > > We do have to start to recognise the risk of dependencies compiled with > JDK > > 8... IOW when releasing bits of Maven we strictly require the release > > manager to use the base Java version. That puts restrictions on what the > > developers can use. > > > > The base version for plugins will always lag behind the base version for > > core. So, for example, plugins are only now getting up to Java 1.6 as a > > baseline... But it is getting harder for me to get a Java 6 to compile > > with... I know for building the animal sniffer signatures I couldn't get > > JDKs that could be installed on my primary OS at the time (Linux) down > > below 1.4... With some VMs I was able to get down to 1.3 for some JVMs > and > > one set of 1.2 signatures. I can't get a Java 1.5 for my Mac... The 1.6 > is > > getting hard we to install... So 1.7 is an effective baseline unless I > > develop in a VM... What will the story be in 2-3 years? The choice we > make > > now affects that future. > > > > JDK 9 or 10 will drop support for at least -target 1.6 and perhaps > -target > > 1.7 so as I see it we have to start being more aggressive whether that > > starts now or in 6 months when JDK 9 comes out is a timing question only > > IMHO > > > > On Wednesday 2 December 2015, Hervé BOUTEMY <herve.bout...@free.fr> > wrote: > > > > > from source code point of view, you don't need to change anything to > > > compile > > > with JDK 8, true > > > > > > But what we showed with Arnaud in our ApacheCON demo (sorry to tell a > lot > > > about it, but that was the topic...), JDK 8 compiler may introduce > Java 8 > > > API > > > references into bytecode from source that don't have any JDK 8 > reference > > > See bonus demo [1] for a demo :) > > > > > > This is the first time in JDK history that such a behaviour happens: > > using > > > JDK > > > 8 instead of JDK 7 for launching Maven/javac does not give same result > > > (unless > > > using toolchains, of course). > > > > > > That's why I currently fear with JDK 8 that people will get some > > unexpected > > > failures. And during the conf, for a few attendees, this demo gave a > > "now I > > > understand what happened to me on one of my builds..." reaction > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Hervé > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > https://github.com/MavenDemo/java-evolving-en/blob/master/toolchains/bonus.sh > > > > > > Le mardi 1 décembre 2015 08:10:51 Kristian Rosenvold a écrit : > > > > Technically, JDK8 is entirely undramatic for maven; I'm having a hard > > > > time understanding why it should trigger any api changes or any other > > > > "4.0" reasons. > > > > > > > > I cannot make heads or tails of the supposed versioning policy, the > > > > language is too convoluted for me or I'm just not smart enough. > > > > > > > > If we are to stay aligned with current practice, jdk8 should be a > > > > minor release. As for the actual topic of "should" we switch, i'm > > > > always in favour of moving forwards. But not in any religious sense. > > > > > > > > > > > > Kristian > > > > > > > > 2015-12-01 6:59 GMT+01:00 Mirko Friedenhagen < > mfriedenha...@gmail.com > > > <javascript:;>>: > > > > > +1 for Java 8 and the version bump to 4.x,.communicates the change > > more > > > > > clearly. > > > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > Mirko > > > > > -- > > > > > Sent from my mobile > > > > > On Nov 30, 2015 23:44, "Stephen Connolly" > > > > > <stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com <javascript:;>> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > >> I have no issues if we want to call the next version 4.0.x rather > > than > > > > >> 3.4.x > > > > >> > > > > >> In my view there are some advantages to using the 4.0.x version > > > number as > > > > >> a > > > > >> Java 8 bump... namely that leaves the modelVersion 5.0 changes to > > > Maven > > > > >> 5.0 > > > > >> > > > > >> And let's face it, it will just be less confusing to users to say > > "To > > > > >> build > > > > >> a modelVersion 5.0 pom you need Maven 5" > > > > >> > > > > >> So if there is strong interest in jumping to Java 8 perhaps we > just > > > bite > > > > >> the bullet and jump to Maven 4.0 with Java 8 now and then we can > > start > > > > >> the > > > > >> model version 5.0 debate in earnest as we plan the features for > > Maven > > > 5.0 > > > > >> ;-) > > > > >> > > > > >> -Stephen > > > > >> > > > > >> On 30 November 2015 at 22:25, Jason van Zyl <ja...@takari.io > > > <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > > >> > I agree that jumping to Java 8 would be unwise. I think we can > > wait > > > > >> > until > > > > >> > 4.x. Don’t get me wrong, I’d prefer to use Java 8 and I do for > > > almost > > > > >> > everything else but I don’t think there’s any dire rush. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > On Nov 30, 2015, at 2:00 PM, Michael Osipov < > > micha...@apache.org > > > <javascript:;>> > > > > >> > > > > >> wrote: > > > > >> > > Am 2015-11-30 um 22:18 schrieb Stephen Connolly: > > > > >> > >> Picking up from > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/maven-dev/201511.mbox/%3CCA%2BnP > > > > >> nMyjogmqRweYbxLuULLB9ve2P6MPcQuH%2BPkxcNn-oN4GPg%40mail.gmail.com > > > %3E>> > > > > >> > >> (and my follow up to that but archive.apache.org is being a > > tad > > > > >> > >> slow) > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> Here is our policy: > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> The development line of Maven core should require a minimum > JRE > > > > >> > > > > >> version > > > > >> > > > > >> > >>> that is no older than 18 months after the end of Oracle's > > public > > > > >> > > > > > >> > updates > > > > >> > > > > > >> > >>> for that JRE version at the time that the first version of > the > > > > >> > > > > > >> > development > > > > >> > > > > > >> > >>> line was released, but may require a higher minimum JRE > > version > > > if > > > > >> > > > > > >> > other > > > > >> > > > > > >> > >>> requirements dictate a higher JRE version > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> (Source: > > > > >> > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MAVEN/Version+number+policy > > > > >> > > > > >> > ) > > > > >> > > > > > >> > >> OK, so it's a draft policy... but we've all been silent on > the > > > > >> > >> draft, > > > > >> > > > > >> so > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> lazy consensus! > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> Now in > > > http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/eol-135779.html > > > > >> > > > > > >> > they > > > > >> > > > > > >> > >> state: > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> after April 2015, Oracle will not post further updates of > Java > > > SE 7 > > > > >> > >> to > > > > >> > > > > > >> > its > > > > >> > > > > > >> > >>> public download sites > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> So per our (draft) version number policy, we can keep Java 7 > as > > > the > > > > >> > >> baseline :-( or we can choose to upgrade code to Java 8 > > (because > > > we > > > > >> > > > > > >> > want to > > > > >> > > > > > >> > >> use lambdas... there's a requirement) > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> So assuming we bump the master branch of Maven core to 3.4.0, > > > what > > > > >> > > > > >> Java > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> version do we want to use as the baseline? > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> There are thankfully only two options: > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> Java 7 > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> + Not actually changing things > > > > >> > >> + May make it easier to drive adoption > > > > >> > >> - Still can't use newer language features in core > > > > >> > >> - Java 7 is EOL and it may get harder for developers to > > source > > > > >> > >> JDKs > > > > >> > > > > >> to > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> test and develop against > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > Bumping Java requirements again in minor (!) release is > insane. > > I > > > am > > > > >> > > > > > >> > against that, regardless Oracle has set this EoL or not. Folks > at > > > > >> > Commons > > > > >> > are doing the right this. Bump requirement with a major not a > > minor. > > > > >> > Moreover, we have too many components which have been neglected > > for > > > > >> > > > > >> years, > > > > >> > > > > >> > too many outstanding issues in JIRA. E.g., Doxia, I try to fix > > some > > > > >> > once > > > > >> > > > > >> in > > > > >> > > > > >> > a while but there a too few of us to take care of the entire > Maven > > > > >> > ecosystem. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > I would rather see us to bringing the entire system on a > decent > > > level > > > > >> > > > > > >> > before we make a big leaps which Java. It does not make sense to > > be > > > to > > > > >> > > > > >> put > > > > >> > > > > >> > Maven on the fast lane but let other components suffer at the > edge > > > of > > > > >> > the > > > > >> > road. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > Michael > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > >> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > > > <javascript:;> > > > > >> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > > > <javascript:;> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Thanks, > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Jason > > > > >> > > > > > >> > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > > > >> > Jason van Zyl > > > > >> > Founder, Takari and Apache Maven > > > > >> > http://twitter.com/jvanzyl > > > > >> > http://twitter.com/takari_io > > > > >> > --------------------------------------------------------- > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Be not afraid of growing slowly, be only afraid of standing > still. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > -- Chinese Proverb > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > > > <javascript:;> > > > > >> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > > > <javascript:;> > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > > <javascript:;> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > > > <javascript:;> > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > <javascript:;> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > > <javascript:;> > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Sent from my phone > > >
