Hi Michael, yes AdoptOpenJDK is definitely a good fit.
Jacopo On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 12:39 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 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >
