Hi, 2016-02-25 16:15 GMT+02:00 Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>: > > On 25/02/2016 13:52, Rémy Maucherat wrote: > > Hi, > > > > This has been hinted at in the past, but is not being discussed anymore. > > > > Possible options: > > a) Release a new 8.x branch that would include the connectors from 9 to > > support HTTP/2 [OpenSSL now allows realistic support without having to wait > > for Java 9], and thus would remove a few legacy items. > > This should be doable but we'd need to think about the how to make sure > we didn't loose history for code that becomes 8.1.x. > > > b) A more radical option is to use 9 as 8.x but remove the Servlet API > > changes. This would force Java 8 and many incompatible changes. > > Eclipse tells me there are ~200 errors if I try to build Tomcat 9 with > Java 7. Those errors have maybe a handful of root causes of which only > one looks to be non-trivial (http2.FrameType) but even that is a > relatively simple fix. > > The Java 7 issues look solvable. That there are *lots* of other API > changes and that is likely to be more significant. > > > c) Give up on 8.x and instead release 9 as beta, then stable, with an > > explicit exception about the Servlet 4 API additions being "preview" until > > further notice. That's probably the solution which involves the least > > effort by far. > > I assume you mean give up on 8.next and continue to maintain 8.0.x. > > > d) Nothing. No 8.x release. 9 will be released sometimes in 2017 when > > Servlet 4 is released. The main issue is that there's no HTTP/2 support > > until then. The longer we wait, the more a major release will conflict with > > the "intuitive" 9 release cycle in 2017. > > > I don't see any other options than the ones you propose. > > Of those options I prefer option b) at the moment. We should probably > call it 8.5 since the degree of API change is significant - like it was > in 5.0 to 5.5.
+1 for b) option may be the usage of lambdas were the failures that you've seen with Java 7 build. > > After that, I have roughly equal preference for a) or c). a) was what I > originally had in mind but b) has since started to look more attractive. > > I don't think d) is a viable option. It leaves the new features in 9.0.x > in alpha for too long. > > Regardless of the option we choose, an open question is how long do we > support 8.0 in parallel with 8.next? For 5.0/5.5 it was about 2 months. > I'd be prepared to do release management in parallel for ~6 months. +1 6 months sounds OK for me Regards, Violeta > Mark > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org >
