Hi,
On 03.06.23 11:46, Hervé Boutemy wrote:
+1
I really don't what benefit we get from going to Java 17
which was already part of the email:
> Based on the argument we don't need features of JDK17+ I see a number
> of things which could make our handling/maintenance easier for example
> using sealed classes to prevent exposing internal things to public which
> could be used etc. also some other small features (`var` for example;
> Text-Blocks in Tests etc) or using records in some situation (really
immutability)..
>
>
Kind regards
Karl Heinz Marbaise
I perfectly see the impact we'll have on our users: for what benefit?
notice that this will also impact all plugins: and given the few work done on
plugins to clearly show what plugin version remains compatible with a JDK
release, I feel we're not taking the topic the right way
Le vendredi 2 juin 2023, 01:50:53 CEST Hunter C Payne a écrit :
I'm not sure I would worry too much about that David. I think most devs
who want better syntax moved from Java sometime ago. They might still be
on the JVM just not writing Java. Also, Maven is a mature project. I
don't think devs considering contributing to it are thinking about using
the latest and greatest version of Java. Compatibility is probably a
bigger concern for the user base. Just my opinion.
Hunter
On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 04:17:26 PM PDT, David Jencks
<david.a.jen...@gmail.com> wrote:
I wonder if having maven require java 8 syntax discourages any potential
contributors who are used to coding using more recent developments. I have
no idea how to tell, but maybe someone else does.
David Jencks
On Jun 1, 2023, at 3:02 PM, Karl Heinz Marbaise <khmarba...@gmx.de> wrote:
Hi,
my clear opinion is to go with most recent JDK LTS version for the
release point of Maven 4.0.0 which I assume will be JDK 21...
That means clear the build time requirement which is completely
different from runtime of an application.
Older JDK's are supported by some vendors by having particular special
support which most of the time requires special contracts (means also
paying money for it)..some of them offering builds without paying money
yes..
Older runtime target are supported with different approaches like
Toolchain or via `--release XX` which exists since JDK9+.
Furthermore if someone is not capable of upgrading the build environment
to JDK9+ they can continue to use Maven 3.8.X or Maven 3.9.X...
If it would be requirement to port things back to 3.8.X or 3.9.X it
could be handled by someone who has the time etc. to do that ... if not,
those people might think of paying someone to do that work...
The given argument about JPMS for migration causes issues is from my
point of view false-positive because migration to newer JDK versions
does not require JPMS usage...
Even platforms like AWS support JDK17 in the meantime which is the
runtime...
Based on the maintenance part it would mean in consequence to downgrade
to even JDK7... (or even lower) because you can get support for older
JDK version in some ways... (JDK7 from azul for example)
Kind regards
Karl Heinz Marbaise
[1] https://www.oracle.com/java/technologies/java-se-support-roadmap.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
