JUnit 4 End Of Life I have a strong reason to use Java 8 in Surefire project. For more information read this https://github.com/junit-team/junit-lambda/issues/31
Cheers Tibor On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 1:16 AM, Tibor Digana-2 [via Maven] < ml-node+s40175n5854925...@n5.nabble.com> wrote: > i agree with stephenc that major version change = API change. > > >> 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 > > We can always open a Vote but then some users may loose a fix been > important for them in old version of Maven @ Java 7. > > Maybe another argument to jump to Java 8. > @all Do you see any Java 8 API which is terribly important? > hint: immutable objects, date time API, Files > > > On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 10:17 AM, Stephen Connolly < > [hidden email] <http:///user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=5854925&i=0>> > wrote: > > > On 2 December 2015 at 09:07, Fred Cooke <[hidden email] > <http:///user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=5854925&i=1>> 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 < > > > [hidden email] <http:///user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=5854925&i=2>> > 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 <[hidden email] > <http:///user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=5854925&i=3>> > > > 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 < > > > [hidden email] <http:///user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=5854925&i=4> > > > > > <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" > > > > > > > <[hidden email] > <http:///user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=5854925&i=5> <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 <[hidden email] > <http:///user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=5854925&i=6> > > > > > <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 < > > > > [hidden email] > <http:///user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=5854925&i=7> > > > > > <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: [hidden email] > <http:///user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=5854925&i=8> > > > > > <javascript:;> > > > > > > >> > > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email] > <http:///user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=5854925&i=9> > > > > > <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: [hidden email] > <http:///user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=5854925&i=10> > > > > > <javascript:;> > > > > > > >> > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email] > <http:///user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=5854925&i=11> > > > > > <javascript:;> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email] > <http:///user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=5854925&i=12> > > > > <javascript:;> > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email] > <http:///user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=5854925&i=13> > > > > > <javascript:;> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email] > <http:///user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=5854925&i=14> > > > <javascript:;> > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email] > <http:///user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=5854925&i=15> > > > > <javascript:;> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Sent from my phone > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Cheers > Tibor > > > ------------------------------ > If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion > below: > > http://maven.40175.n5.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Java-version-requirement-for-Mavan-3-4-x-tp5853427p5854925.html > To start a new topic under Maven Developers, email > ml-node+s40175n142166...@n5.nabble.com > To unsubscribe from Maven Developers, click here > <http://maven.40175.n5.nabble.com/template/NamlServlet.jtp?macro=unsubscribe_by_code&node=142166&code=dGlib3JkaWdhbmFAYXBhY2hlLm9yZ3wxNDIxNjZ8LTI4OTQ5MjEwMg==> > . > NAML > <http://maven.40175.n5.nabble.com/template/NamlServlet.jtp?macro=macro_viewer&id=instant_html%21nabble%3Aemail.naml&base=nabble.naml.namespaces.BasicNamespace-nabble.view.web.template.NabbleNamespace-nabble.view.web.template.NodeNamespace&breadcrumbs=notify_subscribers%21nabble%3Aemail.naml-instant_emails%21nabble%3Aemail.naml-send_instant_email%21nabble%3Aemail.naml> > -- View this message in context: http://maven.40175.n5.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Java-version-requirement-for-Mavan-3-4-x-tp5853427p5854980.html Sent from the Maven Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
