Ok, here's a benefit of Java 11/17 or two: * Reduce build matrix, save energy * Attract devs * CDS for non-OpenJ9-users * Better clarity of code (yes, I mean that) * No additional work (we don't need to migrate, just use the features when modifying a line for a bug/feature anyway) * We leave no one behind b/c of Maven 3.8/3.9, thus no drawbacks. * By the time Maven 4 final is out, your views might have changed!
So Hunter, these have all been brought up before. We can continue with 8, yes. But new projects will use Java 17 anyway, and Java 17 gives us less complex code. That really should be good enough. Really. - Ben On Mon, 5 Jun 2023, 20:40 Hunter C Payne, <hunterpayne2...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote: > Hi, Karl, I'm not sure I agree you have "stated a benefit" so far. > There have been plenty of hand-wavy arguments but nothing really solid. > That's why you are getting so much push back. Point to a specific feature > you need or some other thing that would help the project in some > significant way. At the moment, the argument is basically, "its newer so > its better", I'm sorry but that simply is not true. Make a better case and > you will get less pushback. > Hunter > > On Monday, June 5, 2023 at 06:03:26 AM PDT, Karl Heinz Marbaise < > khmarba...@gmx.de> wrote: > > 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 > >
