These are great points. > On Feb 21, 2024, at 11:27 AM, PJ Fanning <fannin...@apache.org> wrote: > > Usually when projects dump Java 8 support, they is a strong reason. I don't > see any here. > * I am not aware of any dependency that we rely on that has fixes that we > can't uptake if we stick to Java 8 - ie the projects still publish Java 8 > friendly releases even if they have higher version releases that don't > support Java 8 > * I am not aware of any major Java runtime features that we need to uptake > that are not in Java 8 > * For me, there is a better solution to optimising support for newer Java > versions while still supporting older Java versions - Multi Release Jars [1] > * The POI build support for module-info classes is pretty stable and for me > is far from the most complicated part of the build - I, personally, have much > more a problem with the build time wasted on poi-ooxml-full, the complexity > of poi-ooxml-lite and poi-integration - and the fact that we can't automate > our releases because of this complexity. I have given up bringing up > discussions about such items due to general lack of engagement with the dev > mailing list.
Let’s try again then. Let’s discuss the genesis of ooxml-lite. At Apachecon NA Oakland in 2008(?) Nick, Yegor, and I were sitting at a Hackathon table working together on POI when Jukka on the Tika project came over and said they really wanted to use POI for OOXML parsing but a 13MB jar file was just too big. Yegor thought about it and the next day OOXML-lite at 3MB was implemented. It is worth asking in these days where 6GB docker images are almost normal if our users will care about the difference in newer versions? Best, Dave > * We have other Apache projects like Tika, Drill and Linkis that use POI and > some of those still apps still use Java 8 builds. We have 1000s of other > projects that depend on us - eg [2] > * If you look at Stackoverflow or our mailing lists, there is a large number > of users who are using old POI versions and I think we need to avoid making > it harder for those users to upgrade. Java 8 still gets regular security > patches and depending on what you read, as many as 30% of Java users still > use Java 8 (eg [3[). > > [1] https://openjdk.org/jeps/238 > [2] https://mvnrepository.com/artifact/org.apache.poi/poi-ooxml/usages > [3[ https://newrelic.com/resources/report/2023-state-of-the-java-ecosystem > > > On 2024/02/19 23:00:32 stanton fisque wrote: >> something to consider, which kind of gathers a few of the opinions that have >> been discussed, maybe in a different light. >> >> POI is in an odd situation because it is BOTH a consumer of dependencies, >> and IS also a dependency, since it is a library and not a stand-alone >> product. >> >> as a consumer of dependencies, it should be partial to keeping pace with >> what it consumes. it would be a big dis-service if POI lagged behind on its >> dependencies and ended up getting dinged for a CERT or other security issue >> and not be able to mitigate it due to being incompatible with newer versions >> of its dependencies. >> >> though, on the other side, POI should not be too aggressive since it is >> consumed by so many other products "out in the wild". >> >> i think a java-11 requirement would suffice for now. >> >> i do not know if i am eligible (my tacit assumption is no, atm) to offer a >> +1, but if i could, i would. >> >> >> Stanton Fisque >> principal technologist >> latticeware.com >> portland, oregon >> >>> On Feb 19, 2024, at 10:54 AM, Alain FAGOT BÉAREZ <abea...@for-scala.it> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> +1 for moving to Java 11 as minimum >>> >>> My opinion is that we should jump to the oldest LTS version each time one >>> LTS reached its end of life. This means that we would jump from 8 to 17 at >>> once... Which is also not so friendly to be done right now! >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> Alain FAGOT BÉAREZ >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Obter o BlueMail para Android >>> >>> Em 17 de fev de 2024 09:39, em 09:39, Dominik Stadler >>> <dominik.stad...@gmx.at.invalid> escreveu: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> What do others thing? >>>> >>>> We currently are at +2/-1 for moving to Java 11 minimum. >>>> >>>> Would be good if we get a more significant number of votes for this. >>>> >>>> Thanks... Dominik. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sat, Feb 3, 2024 at 10:04 PM Axel Howind <a...@dua3.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> for whatever reason I cannot reach both the Nabble and MarkMail >>>> archives >>>>> to check if this has been discussed before, but I think it would be a >>>> good >>>>> idea to bump the minimum Java version for POI 5 to 11. I’d also be ok >>>> (or >>>>> rather like) 17. What do you think? >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> Axel >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@poi.apache.org >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@poi.apache.org >>>>> >>>>> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@poi.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@poi.apache.org >> >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@poi.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@poi.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@poi.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@poi.apache.org
