Re: Java version minimal version: should we move to a more recent Java version?
Hi, all in all, everything is working well with Java 8 so far, except that this version will not anymore be maintained by Oracle without a paid support, but it still maintained by some other organizations. So I guess we can keep going on for a couple of more years ;-) On 17/08/2022 09:07, Colm O hEigeartaigh wrote: Hi, Apache Kerby has a minimal version of Java 8. If Apache Directory were to switch to Java 11, I would have to create a profile to exclude the LDAP backend from Kerby if someone wanted to use Java 8 - but that's OK. I could bump Kerby to Java 11 as well, but I'd only do that in a new major version. In short, no major objections to moving Apache Directory Server to Java 11, if there are good reasons to do so. Colm. On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 10:52 AM Emmanuel Lécharny wrote: Hi! we currently support Java 8 (plus the newer LTES 11 and 17. Java 8 is EOL since mars 2022, and the security support ends in 2025. Should we decide to drop Java 8 now? We currently have tests for: LDAP API: Java 8, 11, 17 on Linux, Java 8 on windows Server: Java 8, 11, 17 on Linux, Java 11 on windows Studio: Java 11 and 17 on Linux, Java 11 on windows Kerby:Not sure which versions are supported Fortress: Java 8 I think we should complete the matrix for all the projects and OS (Linux, MacOS and Windows) Now, Java 17 is out for almost a year, an it might become mainstream sooner or later. The questio is to see if we should keep going with Java 8 for the next releases, or if we should decide to switch to Java 11 - or 17 ? - wdyt ? -- *Emmanuel Lécharny - CTO* 205 Promenade des Anglais – 06200 NICE T. +33 (0)4 89 97 36 50 P. +33 (0)6 08 33 32 61 emmanuel.lecha...@busit.com https://www.busit.com/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@directory.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@directory.apache.org -- *Emmanuel Lécharny - CTO* 205 Promenade des Anglais – 06200 NICE T. +33 (0)4 89 97 36 50 P. +33 (0)6 08 33 32 61 emmanuel.lecha...@busit.com https://www.busit.com/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@directory.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@directory.apache.org
Re: Java version minimal version: should we move to a more recent Java version?
Hi, Apache Kerby has a minimal version of Java 8. If Apache Directory were to switch to Java 11, I would have to create a profile to exclude the LDAP backend from Kerby if someone wanted to use Java 8 - but that's OK. I could bump Kerby to Java 11 as well, but I'd only do that in a new major version. In short, no major objections to moving Apache Directory Server to Java 11, if there are good reasons to do so. Colm. On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 10:52 AM Emmanuel Lécharny wrote: > > Hi! > > we currently support Java 8 (plus the newer LTES 11 and 17. > Java 8 is EOL since mars 2022, and the security support ends in 2025. > > Should we decide to drop Java 8 now? > > We currently have tests for: > LDAP API: Java 8, 11, 17 on Linux, Java 8 on windows > Server: Java 8, 11, 17 on Linux, Java 11 on windows > Studio: Java 11 and 17 on Linux, Java 11 on windows > Kerby:Not sure which versions are supported > Fortress: Java 8 > > I think we should complete the matrix for all the projects and OS > (Linux, MacOS and Windows) > > Now, Java 17 is out for almost a year, an it might become mainstream > sooner or later. > > The questio is to see if we should keep going with Java 8 for the next > releases, or if we should decide to switch to Java 11 - or 17 ? - > > wdyt ? > > > -- > *Emmanuel Lécharny - CTO* 205 Promenade des Anglais – 06200 NICE > T. +33 (0)4 89 97 36 50 > P. +33 (0)6 08 33 32 61 > emmanuel.lecha...@busit.com https://www.busit.com/ > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@directory.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@directory.apache.org > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@directory.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@directory.apache.org
Re: Java version minimal version: should we move to a more recent Java version?
> On Aug 10, 2022, at 8:30 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote: > > FTR, here is the list of projects and supported Java versions: > > Directory Project > none > > LDAP API: > Linux > Java 8, 11, 17 > Windows > java 8 > > Mavibot > Linux > Java 8, 11, 17 > Windows > Java 8 > > Server > Linux > Java 8, 11, 17 > Windows > Java 11 > > Studio > Linux > Java 11, 17 > Windows > Java 11 > > Directory BuildTools > none > > Directory-kerby > none > > Directory-jdbm > Not under git !! > > Fortress > no jenkins file > There are pipelines for fortress builds to Apacheds and openldap: https://ci-builds.apache.org/job/Directory/ > Directory-Scimple > No jenkins ffile > > > So we have some kind of work here: > - add the windows Java 11 and 17 builds in JenkinFile > - add JenksFile for Kerby, Fortress and Scimple > - add jdbm project in git repository > > I'm not sure about the version change though. IMO, the users should be able > to use the projects with 11 and 17, no matter the version they use. The onbly > pb is for the rare who are still using Java 8. That’s what I’m referring to. There will be other ramifications, as to what packages can them be employed. For example, fortress will have to migrate jaxb to Jakarta. These are breaking changes to projects that depend, thus the suggestion to bump up a major revision to delineate the change. i.e. anyone running Java 8 will be on 2.x and before. 3.x is for Java 11 and beyond. I’ve been contemplating this jump. As you said, with 8 being EOL, now’s a good time. > > Now, Java 21 is one year away, and it comes with some very interesting > features (namely virtual threads) that may give some interesting boost in > performance. That may be for a new version of the server and API. Again we’re talking about breaking compatibility for our users. (Stating the obvious) So, if API req’s 21, fortress must also. Not sure that’s a good thing to require the latest JDK. Definitely would need to be a very good reason. A blazingly fast (and robust) solution would probably suffice :-) — Shawn - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@directory.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@directory.apache.org
Re: Java version minimal version: should we move to a more recent Java version?
FTR, here is the list of projects and supported Java versions: Directory Project none LDAP API: Linux Java 8, 11, 17 Windows java 8 Mavibot Linux Java 8, 11, 17 Windows Java 8 Server Linux Java 8, 11, 17 Windows Java 11 Studio Linux Java 11, 17 Windows Java 11 Directory BuildTools none Directory-kerby none Directory-jdbm Not under git !! Fortress no jenkins file Directory-Scimple No jenkins ffile So we have some kind of work here: - add the windows Java 11 and 17 builds in JenkinFile - add JenksFile for Kerby, Fortress and Scimple - add jdbm project in git repository I'm not sure about the version change though. IMO, the users should be able to use the projects with 11 and 17, no matter the version they use. The onbly pb is for the rare who are still using Java 8. Now, Java 21 is one year away, and it comes with some very interesting features (namely virtual threads) that may give some interesting boost in performance. That may be for a new version of the server and API. On 10/08/2022 14:33, Shawn McKinney wrote: On Aug 10, 2022, at 4:52 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote: we currently support Java 8 (plus the newer LTES 11 and 17. Java 8 is EOL since mars 2022, and the security support ends in 2025. Should we decide to drop Java 8 now? I’m not opposed to it. We currently have tests for: LDAP API: Java 8, 11, 17 on Linux, Java 8 on windows Server: Java 8, 11, 17 on Linux, Java 11 on windows Studio: Java 11 and 17 on Linux, Java 11 on windows Kerby:Not sure which versions are supported Fortress: Java 8 Fortress Core, Realm and Rest are 8, Web is 11, due to latest Apache Wicket’s requirement. I think we should complete the matrix for all the projects and OS (Linux, MacOS and Windows) Now, Java 17 is out for almost a year, an it might become mainstream sooner or later. The questio is to see if we should keep going with Java 8 for the next releases, or if we should decide to switch to Java 11 - or 17 ? - wdyt ? I’m OK with 11. Definitely not 17. Not because of any incompatibility in the code, but because it limits the user’s options. Probably should include a change in major version we use. e.g. Fortress would be v3.x going forward. LDAP API 3.x, etc. — Shawn - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@directory.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@directory.apache.org -- *Emmanuel Lécharny - CTO* 205 Promenade des Anglais – 06200 NICE T. +33 (0)4 89 97 36 50 P. +33 (0)6 08 33 32 61 emmanuel.lecha...@busit.com https://www.busit.com/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@directory.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@directory.apache.org
Re: Java version minimal version: should we move to a more recent Java version?
> On Aug 10, 2022, at 4:52 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote: > > we currently support Java 8 (plus the newer LTES 11 and 17. > Java 8 is EOL since mars 2022, and the security support ends in 2025. > > Should we decide to drop Java 8 now? > I’m not opposed to it. > We currently have tests for: > LDAP API: Java 8, 11, 17 on Linux, Java 8 on windows > Server: Java 8, 11, 17 on Linux, Java 11 on windows > Studio: Java 11 and 17 on Linux, Java 11 on windows > Kerby:Not sure which versions are supported > Fortress: Java 8 > Fortress Core, Realm and Rest are 8, Web is 11, due to latest Apache Wicket’s requirement. > I think we should complete the matrix for all the projects and OS (Linux, > MacOS and Windows) > > Now, Java 17 is out for almost a year, an it might become mainstream sooner > or later. > > The questio is to see if we should keep going with Java 8 for the next > releases, or if we should decide to switch to Java 11 - or 17 ? - > > wdyt ? I’m OK with 11. Definitely not 17. Not because of any incompatibility in the code, but because it limits the user’s options. Probably should include a change in major version we use. e.g. Fortress would be v3.x going forward. LDAP API 3.x, etc. — Shawn - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@directory.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@directory.apache.org
