FWIW, I agree with Ralph wholeheartedly. Gary
On Mon, Jul 25, 2022, 15:31 Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote: > 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 <enno.thiel...@holisticon.de> > 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 <rmannibu...@gmail.com> > > Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2022 6:55 PM > > To: Maven Developers List <dev@maven.apache.org> > > Subject: Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0 > > > > Le sam. 23 juil. 2022 à 17:25, Benjamin Marwell <bmarw...@apache.org> 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, <delany.middle...@gmail.com> 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 <m...@talios.com> 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 <delany.middle...@gmail.com> > >> 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: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > >
