I think it would be great to upgrade to JDK 11 on openjdk and get this issue over with. For those who want to switch to oracle JDK, they can easily do so, but we should perhaps stabilize on openjdk by default and get the build system and documentation pointing to openjdk as a long term solution to this problem.
On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 2:39 PM Michael Brohl <michael.br...@ecomify.de> wrote: > > Hi Jacopo, > > an alternative would be https://adoptopenjdk.net/ which provides > prebuild packages. The scripts for package building are Apache 2.0 > licensed and they are providing Java 8 and 11 LTS versions. > > Seems a good fit to me. > > Since Java 8 is LTS there, we do not necessarily have to upgrade OFBiz > for the use of Java 11. > > Best regards, > > Michael > > > Am 13.02.19 um 11:06 schrieb Jacopo Cappellato: > > Considering that now Oracle JDKs are no more free for commercial use, I > > think that as a community we should make it a priority to suggest a > > different Java build in the README and other public documents. > > The simplest alternative (because it is the closest to Oracle JDK) is the > > Open JDK 11 maintained by Oracle and distributed from: > > https://jdk.java.net/11/ > > > > In my opinion our README should point to it rather than: > > http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/downloads/index.html > > as it is now. > > However, before we can do it, we have to resolve: > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-10757 > > which should not be too difficult to achieve. > > > > Just my two cents, > > > > Jacopo > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 2:21 PM James Yong <jamesy...@apache.org> wrote: > > > >> Answering my last question. > >> From the download page for Oracle JDK 11, demo purpose is allowed. > >> > >> On 2018/10/24 07:38:19, James Yong <jamesy...@apache.org> wrote: > >>> 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 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> >
