Howdy,
I think we want a vote about this, plus, Resolver is picking up the latest
Java features. So we ("movers") even have arguments why we need new Java
versions.
I wonder what "aligners" (those who want the same Java version to run Maven
and run their end product built by Maven, in other words "aligned on the
same Java") have to say here.
T
On Wed, Feb 7, 2024 at 4:55 AM Martijn Verburg <martijnverb...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> Wanted to offer an one 'end user' data point. For transparency, I run Java
> engineering at Microsoft (including supporting Minecraft and LinkedIn
> subsidiaries). We're one of the Big Tech Co's that have moved 90%+ of their
> Java workloads off Java 8 onto 11+ :-).
>
> I acknowledge we're not representative of the whole ecosystem (Java is a
> broad Church as they say!) but our stance for 1P and 3P customers is to
> strongly encourage them to move to modern Java stacks, starting with the
> JDK. The ROI in security, stability, performance, developer productivity
> and reduction in Cost of Goods Sold (COGS) is *overwhelmingly* in favour of
> doing so, even despite some challenging efforts to move some apps off Java
> 8 (for the record, Java 11 -> 17/21 migrations are much, much faster).
>
> In short, we'd be fully supportive of Java 17/21 being the build JDK for
> Maven 4.0+. It's time for the Java ecosystem to move on from Java 8 and
> enjoy the massive improvements 11+ brings to the table. Keeping the 3.9.x
> (or 3.10.x) series at JDK 8 is a good compromise for students, academics,
> smaller entities or those who might be stuck on say kiosks or other
> environments where there is a technical limitation. Adding an EOL to that
> is a sound idea and encourages folks to plan for modernization/migration or
> they could offer to extend the EOL by way of sponsorship, payment or
> engineering resource.
>
> Cheers,
> Martijn
>
>
> On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 at 15:46, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The JVM and JRE don't let you escape out of JPMS. Presumably this is why
> we
> > had to redo a bunch of Maven modules for Log4j on the master branch
> > (unreleased WIP for 3.0).
> >
> > Gary
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 6, 2024, 6:43 PM Martin Desruisseaux <
> > martin.desruisse...@geomatys.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Le 2024-02-07 à 00 h 37, Gary Gregory a écrit :
> > > >
> > > > I have no use for JPMS today, I just don't want it to get in the way,
> > > > which is impossible since there is no --dont-bother-me-jpms flag...
> > > >
> > > That option exists at the level of the proposed Maven 4 API and has a
> > > JUnit test [1]. Plugins have the possibility to expose it. Where does
> > > the idea that JPMS will be imposed to everyone come from?
> > >
> > > Martin
> > >
> > > [1]https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/1378#issuecomment-1925933959
> > >
> >
>
