Stephen, I was pragmatic and did not want to push users to use Maven&Java8 only because JDK 7 is weak.
First the interest should go from inside, this means API and then users. I agree with Michael whether we should better focus on Maven 4 and POM structure. For instance today everybody could notice on mailing list that we are in hurry with Jigsaw support, me too! It does not mean for me Java 9, nothing but Jigsaw's modularity because this goes with Users - my second question (first was API). So yes this makes sense to spend the time in Jigsaw however I am the one who does not like Oracle's style of pushing the release and breaking their rules that Java SE release is aligned with Java EE release where Java EE 8 is not yet out. And I am not talking about the facts that Oracle's Patent of SE will be cheaper but developers more angry in 9 and 10 because I know what they plan to do! On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 8:21 PM, Michael Osipov <[email protected]> wrote: > Am 2017-09-10 um 19:07 schrieb Stephen Connolly: > >> Hervé and I discussed on irc earlier today. >> >> My suggestion - I was going to write up tomorrow - is that we drop 7 for >> 3.6.x >> >> We should focus 3.6.x on making the codebase Java 8 (lambdas, replace >> File____Stream with the non-file handle leak version, adopt Path, etc) >> with >> a view to encourage contributions... and best support for Java 9 (such >> that >> if you run j9 we recommend 3.6.x) >> > > This will take months to properly rewrite Maven core. I'd rather see this > for Maven 4 and continue to polish Maven with 3.5.x, 3.6.x, etc. > > Unless no one will do this within a short timeframe, I see no benefit here. > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
