Hi all, Will the release model and licensing changes impact our demos hosted with Apache Software Foundation?
Regards, James On 2018/10/24 06:54:05, James Yong <jamesy...@apache.org> wrote: > Hi all, > > OFBiz can be used as an application framework and not all business use-case > justify the yearly price-tag of Oracle JDK. Given that more products(1) are > moving to support OpenJDK, should OFBiz follow? > > Regards, > James > > (1) See plan of Atlasians product to support OpenJDK > https://community.atlassian.com/t5/Jira-discussions/Java-11-and-OpenJDK-support-for-Atlassian-Server-amp-Data-Center/m-p/872998#M4575 > > > On 2018/07/31 06:35:46, Jacques Le Roux <jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> wrote: > > Hi Michael, > > > > How (by which mean) do you envision to "actively inform users about our > > roadmap", blog, wiki or embedded documentation? > > > > It seems the blog is not reaching all our users (needs attention). Maybe an > > initial statement could be used there though. > > > > The wiki is slowly deprecating in favour of the embedded documentation. So > > I guess we will use the embedded documentation for lasting information, > > right? > > > > BTW All, I want to close OFBIZ-9226 "Check that OFBiz runs and compile with > > Oracle JDK 9 (Java 9)" as unresolved and create a new similar issue for > > Java 11, what do you think? > > > > Jacques > > > > > > Le 28/07/2018 à 13:29, Michael Brohl a écrit : > > > Hi Mathieu, > > > > > > my goal is to actively inform users about our roadmap and provide > > > information on how the project will deal with the new Java release model. > > > Users > > > testing OFBiz for their needs in a professional environment also check if > > > a project has answers to these questions so I am wrapping my mind around > > > it. > > > > > > This is just to make clear that I am not eager to switch to newer Java > > > versions just for the sake of it. > > > > > > > > > Am 28.07.18 um 12:54 schrieb Mathieu Lirzin: > > >>> I wonder if we should base the OFBiz 17.12 release on Java 8 or Java > > >>> 11. We have no fixed release date yet so we might have time to do it. > > >>> > > >>> Another way would be to make a new branch which will support Java 11. > > >>> > > >>> What do people think? > > >> I think OFBiz should be conservative in its choices. > > > > > > I agree! > > > > > >> Given the fact Java 11 is not release yet or is about to be released, > > > > > > Java 11 will be released as GA in Sept 18. At the same time, > > > non-subscribed users will get no updates for Java 8 any more. > > > > > >> OFBiz should keep compatibity with the previous LTS release meaning java > > >> 8. Of course > > > > > > Yes, you are right. If you focus on subscribed users, they will get Java > > > 8 support until September 2023 (2026 for extended subscription). > > > So following my thoughts to assume that users will subscribe, we can stay > > > with Java 8 for a while. > > > > > > On the other hand, if we test Java 11 and find that we will have few > > > issues we can easily handle, it could be a good idea to make the switch > > > with > > > release 17.12. > > > > > > I am open to both (or other) models and would like to hear more opinions > > > about that. > > > > > >> This does not mean that OFBiz should not be tested with more recent Java > > >> releases too. > > >> > > >> Having an extra branch has a maintenance burden that should be balanced > > >> with the benefits it provides. What benefits do you see in having a > > >> Java 11 branch? > > >> > > > This is just an alternative to the Java 11 update of the next branch. I > > > do not favor this because of the extra maintenance burden you mentioned. > > > > > > In conclusion, we can stick to Java 8, informing our users that they have > > > to subscribe for further updates. > > > > > > If we do this, we should think about a roadmap/ process to change to Java > > > 11 in the future. This could be, for example, set up during the release > > > branch 21.x or 22.x to give us enough time. > > > > > > We should also, in my opinion, check/test for Java 11 and following > > > versions compatibility in the next months to be able to inform users > > > about > > > compatibilities/incompatibilities with this version. Maybe we can provide > > > some compatibility matrix or else. > > > > > > Thanks for your thoughts, > > > Michael > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
