I agree with Taher, We should upgrade to openJDK and I think with the small code change we can upgrade to openJDK
Kind Regards, Deepak Dixit On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 5:21 PM Taher Alkhateeb <slidingfilame...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> > > >
