Some statistics below. I think you are being very optimistic about how fast people will adopt JDK 17. If it follows the trends for Java 8 and 11 I would put money on betting it won’t be the predominant version until the next LTS is released.
https://adoptium.net/support and https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2020/08/amazon-corretto-8-11-support-extended/ shows Java 8 being supported through at least 2026 and Java 11 until 2027. I don’t think users will be in a hurry to upgrade. So if Maven were to continue enhancements and support for Maven 3 I don’t think there would be any issue with making Maven 4 require Java 17. But the Maven project doesn’t have a history of maintaining two major versions simultaneously While lots of company’s are cautious in upgrading the JDK they are using, generally they are less reluctant to upgrade Maven. But if Maven 4 requires Java 17, most places won’t upgrade to it if they are using Java 8 or 11. Although the -release option should guarantee compatibility I am sure lots of folks won’t trust that it is. So my vote would be +1 for Maven 4 requiring Java 17 under the condition that Maven 3 continues to get new releases. Ralph https://newrelic.com/resources/report/2022-state-of-java-ecosystem#:~:text=More%20than%2048%25%20of%20applications,using%20the%20version%20in%20production. https://www.infoworld.com/article/3652408/java-8-still-dominates-but-java-17-wave-is-coming-survey.html > On Jul 23, 2022, at 12:05 PM, Enno Thieleke <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Fwiw: > > Romain, I think you're exaggerating. The answer is, like in most cases: "it > depends". > > Most people, we're most likely talking 95-99% here, will happily use JDK 17 > with Maven 4. > > Some people might need to compile for lower sources and targets, but running > tests for those builds in JDK 17 instead of, let's say 11, _will suffice in > most cases_. > > Yes, there will be edge cases where people will be forced to use different > JDKs at least for tests, some even for builds. But that's possible, so they > won't get left behind. > > Regarding mvnd: It's not a silver bullet. It never was and it never will be. > Whenever a build spawns new JVMs (for tests or other tasks), it doesn't > benefit from mvnd anymore (in as much as it would without spawning new JVMs). > > To not use the latest (LTS) JDK in order to "better" support the 1-5% of the > Maven users, who're still using obsolete JVMs (I'm obviously referring to > Karl's assumption, which I agree with), would be a kick in the teeth of all > Maven developers, who finally want to embrace the present (not even the > future). > > Long story short, +1 for JDK 17 as minimum for Maven 4. > > Kind regards, > Enno > > ________________________________ > From: Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]> > Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2022 6:55 PM > To: Maven Developers List <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0 > > Le sam. 23 juil. 2022 à 17:25, Benjamin Marwell <[email protected]> a > écrit : > >> No, 2 JDKs are not required by default. Only if you use --release={<17} and >> don't trust running tests on 17 are the same as running tests on 8. >> Yes, there are changes (certificates, XML libs, rhino, etc). >> > > As explained it means you dont write a single test or dont care of the test > results so yes it needs 2 jdk. > > > >> So, for most projects that's probably not needed. For those who think it is >> needed, I don't have a lot of pity. But it will be a requirement for quite >> a few commercial projects, like Containers (JavaEE, as they will need to be >> Java 8 as long as 2030ish due to extended support contracts). >> >> That said, I'm still thinking Java 17 will be a sane default. >> >> >> On Sat, 23 Jul 2022, 10:50 Delany, <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Using mvnd with toolchains doesn't improve the situation, in fact >>> toolchains seem to invalidate any benefit of using mvnd. >>> Even if this was resolved, is it fair to require mvnd? >>> Delany >>> >>> >>> On Sat, 23 Jul 2022 at 10:17, Mark Derricutt <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Is that due to cold starting the JVM each time? >>>> >>>> I wonder if mvnd supports toolchains effectively? Or if that could be >> an >>>> avenue to try. >>>> -- >>>> "Great artists are extremely selfish and arrogant things" — Steven >>> Wilson, >>>> Porcupine Tree >>>> >>>> On 23/07/2022 at 8:13:23 PM, Delany <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I tried toolchains but dropped it because of the exorbitant >> performance >>>>> costs. >>>>> A multi-module build that normally built in 3:50 took 10:34, and >> that's >>>>> with toolchaining only maven-compiler-plugin. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
