You need toolchains if your code needs the JAXB classes removed in JDK11. Delany
On Tue, 6 Jun 2023 at 01:54, Henning Schmiedehausen < henn...@schmiedehausen.org> wrote: > To get this discussion a bit more back to actual substance: > > Do you still need toolchains with JDK 11/17? I set the release version to > "8" (or anything else) in my builds, ripped out all the toolchains and it > "just works". We have done this for Jdbi for ages (require Java 11+ as the > build JDK; we even enforce "latest LTS" for releases) and compile to Java 8 > bytecode. So far, we had zero complaints from users that the resulting > releases do not work / cause problems on JDK 8. > > It seems to me that toolchains are only relevant if you need to compile to > Java 1.6 or lower (shudder). The current LTS supports any version post-7 as > release target. > > Am I missing something? > > Oh, I am totally cool with Maven 4 requiring Java 17 to run. In fact, this > will give us an opportunity to actually use java 17 code to *write* maven, > which in turn will collapse all of those thousand little domain objects > into single line records. Can't wait for that. :-) > > The challenge for plugin writers will be to support Maven 3.x (mostly 3.8, > 3.9) and 4 evenly. The current set of available modules and libraries makes > that hard. A page with "use this to be compatible with that" would be > helpful. > > -h > > > > > On Mon, Jun 5, 2023 at 2:23 PM Delany <delany.middle...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Your inclination to ignore points of the debate doesn't do your own > > arguments any justice. > > Multiple times it's been explained that raising the required runtime JDK > in > > Maven 4 will not prevent you from > > - building with a lower JDK (via toolchains) > > - targeting a lower JDK (via the release property) > > - building with Maven 3 > > > > This is the main point of the debate, not the language. > > > > On Mon, 5 Jun 2023 at 21:42, Hunter C Payne > > <hunterpayne2...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote: > > > > > * Attract devsAbsolutely not. If you want to attract devs, switch to a > > > language that is actually growing (no I'm advocating for this). That > > isn't > > > Java. If anything, this will lose you devs. The company I work for > will > > > be leaving Maven if you stop supporting Java8. That's 300 users you > lose > > > right there. That's just 1 company. You will lose users in droves if > > you > > > stop Java8 support. Many companies don't have/put enough resources > into > > > this type of upgrade. Its hard to justify to the business and it makes > > > lots of work for devs (expensive). If it is cheaper to switch build > > > systems that to upgrade the JVM, that's exactly what folks will do. My > > > company certainly will (not my decision so don't try to convince me, > I'm > > > not the one you have to convince). > > > > > > * CDS for non-OpenJ9-usersI'm not sure this is something that is really > > > taken advantage of by Maven. Perhaps I am wrong. > > > > > > * Better clarity of code (yes, I mean that)That you say that you > actually > > > mean this says it all. Clearly this is something that isn't agreed > upon > > > universally. Your personal taste shouldn't decide the future of a > > project > > > used by so many others. > > > * No additional work (we don't need to migrate, just use the features > > when > > > modifying a line for a bug/feature anyway)This is simply not true. > There > > > have been comments by devs on this very list, in this very discussion > > that > > > disprove this point. It isn't OK to just ignore their input because > you > > > really want to use lambdas. > > > > > > * We leave no one behind b/c of Maven 3.8/3.9, thus no drawbacks.You > have > > > that backwards. If you leave Java8, you leave behind everyone who > can't > > > upgrade their source base. It seems to me that the size of the group > of > > > Java8 folks you will leave behind is quite large. So your argument > about > > > no drawbacks isn't credible. There are no drawbacks for you, that > isn't > > > the same as there being no drawbacks for the entire user base. > > > * By the time Maven 4 final is out, your views might have changed!I > write > > > most of my code in Scala so I doubt it seriously. > > > > > > Your points are not nearly as strong as you imply with your tone. Some > > of > > > them indicate a lack of understanding of some more advanced parts of FP > > > which is understandable for Java devs but doesn't make your points > > > correct. And your analysis of the impact on the userbase is just plain > > > wrong. If you want people to bomb this list with complains, drop Java > 8 > > > support and enjoy the rage postings you get from 100s to 1000s of devs > > who > > > work for companies and projects that don't have to resources to > upgrade. > > > > > > Hunter > > > PS Lambdas are only useful if there is function composition and > currying. > > > Java lacks both. So the debate over lambdas is pretty amusing to me. > It > > > is just syntactic sugar. It doesn't actually give you the ability to > do > > > other things like in Scala or Kotlin. So I don't really understand why > > you > > > want to use them so much. Are for loops really that hard to write? I > > mean > > > there is already so much ceremony in Java that saving 3 or 4 keystrokes > > per > > > loop doesn't really make any difference. > > > > > > > > > On Monday, June 5, 2023 at 11:52:16 AM PDT, Tamás Cservenák < > > > ta...@cservenak.net> wrote: > > > > > > Seems people missed this (somewhat related) thread: > > > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/kpsrb28nst84vtohwngy3140g1r0ydd4 > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 5, 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
