ok, you want to contribute on decoupling JDK of Maven vs JDK of compiler and
tests: perhaps we'll need to open a separate discussion to avoid hijacking the
global plan, but let's have one roundtrip
scenario is: I use JDK 21 to run Maven, but I need JDK 8 to run my unit and
integration tests
of course, i have both JDKs on my machine
I see how I can manually configure toolchain.xml, modify pom.xml etc... to do
that: it works, it's cumbersome
How does "dropping toolchains" help?
Defining a common plan will probably require a dedicated discussion, perhaps
some wiki pages, perhaps some meeting between people interested to have more
live ideation before sharing proposal on the ML (which is necessary for wider
community discussion)
Le mercredi 21 février 2024, 08:48:43 CET Romain Manni-Bucau a écrit :
> Hi Hervé,
>
> +1000 on the philosophy!
>
> On the toolchain support I still fail to see why maven has toolchain
> anywhere in its code.
> Look it how it is used:
> * Tools are generally setup with env variables (JAVA_HOME, JAVA17_HOME,
> JAVAEA_HOME or alike)
> * Most plugins able to switch the JDK can switch the executable in their
> config and use by default ${env.JAVAxx_HOME} or whatever is desired which
> is the same indirection than toolchain but without the downside to setup a
> toolchain.xml. Then plugins can just use the binary (optionally PathExt on
> windows to get the extension) and be it, works really well.
>
> So overall I think we could drop toolchain which ultimately still misses a
> few parts to be complete in terms of env setup and make a shared-executable
> stronger - likely the future base of exec plugin even if not required.
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau>
> | LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance
> >
>
>
> Le mer. 21 févr. 2024 à 08:39, Hervé Boutemy <herve.bout...@free.fr> a
>
> écrit :
> > for sure, given the JDK almanach https://javaalmanac.io/jdk/ , we'll have
> > to update our plans
> > https://maven.apache.org/developers/compatibility-plan.html
> >
> > the approach I'd love to promote is "what do we require to not hurt our
> > diversity of users when upgrading minimum prerequisites" (and I'm doing it
> > on my free time because I do care about the diversity of our community)
> > => let's work on the enablers
> >
> > Java prerequisite for Maven core is something, but everything will start
> > from plugins: that's why we started the plugins "requirement history"
> > see for example
> > https://maven.apache.org/plugins/maven-shade-plugin/plugin-info.html
> >
> > for a summary on our own plugins, see last column of
> >
> > https://ci-maven.apache.org/job/Maven/job/maven-box/job/maven-dist-tool/jo
> > b/master/site/dist-tool-prerequisites.html
> >
> > As you can see, not many plugins are not covered yet: who wants to work on
> > this?
> >
> >
> > Another good item cited is improving decoupling JDK of Maven from JDK to
> > compile and run tests.
> > IIRC, Guillaume prepared something about auto-importing available JDKs
> > from sdkman, which is a great idea: I don't know if this was closed done,
> > but I suppose other JDK switcher tools should be supported, I'm
> > particularly interested on knowing what Windows users need
> > One aspect that I know is not well done is that the MANIFEST in jar
> > describes JDK release from Maven core, not target: we should probably do
> > something
> > Another aspect is that toolchains support has to be enabled in pom.xml: it
> > would be useful for it to work from just CLI also.
> >
> > I'm sure there are other features that would be useful on this: who wants
> > to work on this?
> >
> >
> > The 2 previous enablers look sufficient to me: any other enabler someone
> > thinks about?
> >
> > And more importantly: who wants to work on it? plan, track progress,
> > document, explain?
> > we need community's help to prepare a smooth change: updating our plans
> > will be a consequence of this preparation
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Hervé
> >
> > Le mardi 20 février 2024, 21:49:03 CET Tamás Cservenák a écrit :
> > > Howdy,
> > >
> > > I intentionally used "Maven" here, and not "Maven 4" as I am sure the
> > > majority of Maven users do not run Maven on the same Java version they
> > > target with their build. We do not do that either.
> > >
> > > Some snippets from Herve (who is the ONLY one doing reproducible checks,
> > > kudos for that) votes:
> > >
> > > Sun, Feb 18, 2024, 9:38 AM
> > > [VOTE] Release Apache Maven Shade Plugin version 3.5.2
> > > Reproducible Build ok: reference build done with JDK 11 on *nix
> > >
> > > Wed, Jan 31, 2024, 5:06 AM
> > > [VOTE] Release Apache Maven JLink Plugin version 3.2.0
> > > Reproducible Builds ok: reference build done on *nix with JDK 21 and
> >
> > umask
> >
> > > 022
> > >
> > > Mon, Jan 8, 2024, 8:29 AM
> > > [VOTE] Release Maven Plugin Tools version 3.11.0
> > > Reproducible Builds ok: reference build done with JDK 8 on Windows with
> > > umask
> > >
> > > Mon, Dec 18, 2023, 8:59 AM
> > > [VOTE] Release Apache Maven Compiler Plugin version 3.12.0
> > > Reproducible Builds ok: reference build done on *nix with JDK 21 and
> >
> > umask
> >
> > > 022
> > >
> > > Mon, Dec 18, 2023, 8:59 AM
> > > [VOTE] Release Apache Maven Compiler Plugin version 3.12.0
> > > Reproducible Builds ok: reference build done on *nix with JDK 21 and
> >
> > umask
> >
> > > 022
> > >
> > > Wed, Nov 29, 2023, 8:16 AM
> > > [VOTE] Apache Maven Build Cache Extension 1.1.0
> > > Reproducible Build ok: reference build done on *nix with JDK 11
> > >
> > > Sun, Nov 19, 2023, 5:17 PM
> > > [VOTE] Release Maven Resolver 1.9.17
> > > Reproducible Build ok: reference build done with JDK 21 on *nix with
> >
> > umask
> >
> > > 022
> > >
> > > Sat, Oct 21, 2023, 4:34 PM
> > > VOTE] Apache Maven 4.0.0-alpha-8 release
> > > Reproducible Build ok: reference build done with JDK 21 on *nix with
> >
> > umask
> >
> > > 022
> > >
> > > Mon, Oct 2, 2023, 9:11 AM
> > > [VOTE] Release Apache Maven 3.9.5
> > > Reproducible not fully ok: reference build done with JDK 17 on *nix and
> > > umask 022
> > >
> > > ====
> > >
> > > This CLEARLY shows the tendency:
> > > - Michael does releases on Java 8 (on windows!), he is a known "aligner"
> > > and windows person :)
> > > - Olivier used the "minimum" required Java version (for build cache).
> > > - Unsure why Herve used Java 11 for the Shade plugin... I mean, he could
> > > use 21 but also 8, but he shot for 11 that was EOL at the moment of
> >
> > release.
> >
> > > - The rest is 21.
> > >
> > > ====
> > >
> > > So, the question for those refusing anything other than Java 8 to _run_
> > > Maven (or to revert: for those refusing to run Maven on "latest LTS",
> >
> > that
> >
> > > is currently 21):
> > > WHY?
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > T
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
