Re: build requirements for Groovy and language level in master
> And then there is the matter of going to JDK8 master is supposed to be Groovy 3 did we say we want to go to JDK8 here? I think that would be nice... and of course if JDK8 is the minimum could start thinking about having indy enabled by default. Here too I would to hear what people think It would be good for a dynamic programming language to enable indy by default. JDK8 supports indy better than JDK7, so +1 from me to set JDK8 as minimum for Groovy3(master branch). Cheers, Daniel.Sun -- View this message in context: http://groovy.329449.n5.nabble.com/build-requirements-for-Groovy-and-language-level-in-master-tp5739721p5739734.html Sent from the Groovy Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: build requirements for Groovy and language level in master
On Sat, Apr 8, 2017 at 1:11 AM, Jochen Theodorou wrote: > Hi all, > > so if we want to be serious about JDK9 support and not life with a > thousands of warnings displayed whenever you try to execute a Groovy > program or test (44k+ in our build for example)... then we will need JDK9 > specific code. > > That means we will have to change our build to support optional JDK9 code, > like we did in the past several times already. That also means a full build > will require JDK9 a lower JDK will not make a full build then. And once > Cedric fixed JDK9 support in gradle... ahem... poor guy. Anyway, I would > like to hear thoughts about this from the others. > > I don't have a strong opinion here and the fact that it will run on jdk9 (even with 44k warnings) at this point sounds good to me. Since things are still in flux it might be worth waiting a while. > > And then there is the matter of going to JDK8 master is supposed to be > Groovy 3 did we say we want to go to JDK8 here? I think that would be > nice... and of course if JDK8 is the minimum could start thinking about > having indy enabled by default. Here too I would to hear what people think > > I would be in favor of setting jdk8, indy (and parrot) as defaults in master (v3). I think an important decision to be made is how much backward compatibility should be kept in v3. I do understand the concerns raised about backwards compatibility (ala Python 2/3), but think there could be some benefit from being able to focus on some of the significant architectural changes without being contained by the need to retain compatibility.
Re: build requirements for Groovy and language level in master
On April 8, 2017 7:35:18 PM GMT+02:00, Jochen Theodorou wrote: >On 08.04.2017 16:29, Remi Forax wrote: >> Jochen, >> technically, you do not need the jdk 9, >> you can compile with jdk 8 and have a jar that contains the >declaration >> of methods of the jdk 9 you want. > >and use -Xbootclasspath/p:path? yes, I guess we can do that. >JDK-8177827 >will get in the way, but that is minor. Too bad that is in the future >no >real option anymore because of JDK-8177844. you can use --patch-module, 8177844 is about --patch-module having the side effect of making the module upgradeable, i.e. being able to replace the module instead of patching it. > But that will not affect us right now > >> JRuby had worked that way when it was jdk 6 compatible but optionally >> uses the java.lang.invoke API. > >yeah, good idea ;) > >bye Jochen Rémi -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Re: build requirements for Groovy and language level in master
On 08.04.2017 16:29, Remi Forax wrote: Jochen, technically, you do not need the jdk 9, you can compile with jdk 8 and have a jar that contains the declaration of methods of the jdk 9 you want. and use -Xbootclasspath/p:path? yes, I guess we can do that. JDK-8177827 will get in the way, but that is minor. Too bad that is in the future no real option anymore because of JDK-8177844. But that will not affect us right now JRuby had worked that way when it was jdk 6 compatible but optionally uses the java.lang.invoke API. yeah, good idea ;) bye Jochen
Re: build requirements for Groovy and language level in master
Jochen, technically, you do not need the jdk 9, you can compile with jdk 8 and have a jar that contains the declaration of methods of the jdk 9 you want. JRuby had worked that way when it was jdk 6 compatible but optionally uses the java.lang.invoke API. regards, Rémi On April 8, 2017 10:11:51 AM GMT+02:00, Jochen Theodorou wrote: >Hi all, > >so if we want to be serious about JDK9 support and not life with a >thousands of warnings displayed whenever you try to execute a Groovy >program or test (44k+ in our build for example)... then we will need >JDK9 specific code. > >That means we will have to change our build to support optional JDK9 >code, like we did in the past several times already. That also means a >full build will require JDK9 a lower JDK will not make a full build >then. And once Cedric fixed JDK9 support in gradle... ahem... poor guy. > >Anyway, I would like to hear thoughts about this from the others. > > >And then there is the matter of going to JDK8 master is supposed to be >Groovy 3 did we say we want to go to JDK8 here? I think that would be >nice... and of course if JDK8 is the minimum could start thinking about > >having indy enabled by default. Here too I would to hear what people >think > >bye Jochen -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
build requirements for Groovy and language level in master
Hi all, so if we want to be serious about JDK9 support and not life with a thousands of warnings displayed whenever you try to execute a Groovy program or test (44k+ in our build for example)... then we will need JDK9 specific code. That means we will have to change our build to support optional JDK9 code, like we did in the past several times already. That also means a full build will require JDK9 a lower JDK will not make a full build then. And once Cedric fixed JDK9 support in gradle... ahem... poor guy. Anyway, I would like to hear thoughts about this from the others. And then there is the matter of going to JDK8 master is supposed to be Groovy 3 did we say we want to go to JDK8 here? I think that would be nice... and of course if JDK8 is the minimum could start thinking about having indy enabled by default. Here too I would to hear what people think bye Jochen
