Minimum JDK version
Hello team, following the recent mishap about JDK version and releases highlighted two main issues: cannot find jenkins for anything that is not 1.6 we should enforce the build to build with the minimum required JDK. Now for the second point, this is easily achievable. What we have to decide is whether we want this enforcement done on all the builds, or only during releases build and checks. I'm for having it enforced on all the builds. Thoughts? Davide
Re: Minimum JDK version
On 2016-09-12 11:42, Davide Giannella wrote: Hello team, following the recent mishap about JDK version and releases highlighted two main issues: cannot find jenkins for anything that is not 1.6 we should enforce the build to build with the minimum required JDK. Now for the second point, this is easily achievable. What we have to decide is whether we want this enforcement done on all the builds, or only during releases build and checks. I'm for having it enforced on all the builds. Thoughts? +1, the build should fail as early as possible (that is, before we actually commit the bad code). Best regards, Julian
Re: Minimum JDK version
Hi, the interesting thing here is that we actually compile the code with -source and -target=1.6 in these branches [1][2]. However, the javac still uses the rt.jar coming from the current JDK and it does contain the java.nio package. It seems that the only way to check the API usage correctness is to switch to JDK 1.6. Or maybe there’s some way to validate whether the used packages matches selected JDK version (eg. via some plugin reading the @since javadocs in API classes)? Regards, Tomek [1] https://github.com/apache/jackrabbit-oak/blob/1.4/oak-parent/pom.xml#L97 [2] https://github.com/apache/jackrabbit-oak/blob/1.2/oak-parent/pom.xml#L95 -- Tomek Rękawek | Adobe Research | www.adobe.com reka...@adobe.com > On 12 Sep 2016, at 11:42, Davide Giannella wrote: > > Hello team, > > following the recent mishap about JDK version and releases highlighted > two main issues: > > cannot find jenkins for anything that is not 1.6 > > we should enforce the build to build with the minimum required JDK. > > Now for the second point, this is easily achievable. What we have to > decide is whether we want this enforcement done on all the builds, or > only during releases build and checks. > > I'm for having it enforced on all the builds. > > Thoughts? > > Davide > > smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
RE: Minimum JDK version
in sling we use the animal sniffer plugin for exactly this purpose [1]. it checks that the compiled codes only uses signatures available in the configured jdk. stefan [1] http://www.mojohaus.org/animal-sniffer/animal-sniffer-maven-plugin/ >-Original Message- >From: Tomek Rekawek [mailto:reka...@adobe.com] >Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 1:06 PM >To: oak-dev@jackrabbit.apache.org >Subject: Re: Minimum JDK version > >Hi, > >the interesting thing here is that we actually compile the code with - >source and -target=1.6 in these branches [1][2]. However, the javac still >uses the rt.jar coming from the current JDK and it does contain the >java.nio package. It seems that the only way to check the API usage >correctness is to switch to JDK 1.6. > >Or maybe there’s some way to validate whether the used packages matches >selected JDK version (eg. via some plugin reading the @since javadocs in >API classes)? > >Regards, >Tomek > >[1] https://github.com/apache/jackrabbit-oak/blob/1.4/oak- >parent/pom.xml#L97 >[2] https://github.com/apache/jackrabbit-oak/blob/1.2/oak- >parent/pom.xml#L95 > > >-- >Tomek Rękawek | Adobe Research | www.adobe.com >reka...@adobe.com > >> On 12 Sep 2016, at 11:42, Davide Giannella wrote: >> >> Hello team, >> >> following the recent mishap about JDK version and releases highlighted >> two main issues: >> >> cannot find jenkins for anything that is not 1.6 >> >> we should enforce the build to build with the minimum required JDK. >> >> Now for the second point, this is easily achievable. What we have to >> decide is whether we want this enforcement done on all the builds, or >> only during releases build and checks. >> >> I'm for having it enforced on all the builds. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> Davide >> >>
Re: Minimum JDK version
I think Marcel created OAK-4791 for the same. So that should take care of enforcing this constraing Chetan Mehrotra On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 4:40 PM, Stefan Seifert wrote: > in sling we use the animal sniffer plugin for exactly this purpose [1]. > it checks that the compiled codes only uses signatures available in the > configured jdk. > > stefan > > [1] http://www.mojohaus.org/animal-sniffer/animal-sniffer-maven-plugin/ > >>-Original Message- >>From: Tomek Rekawek [mailto:reka...@adobe.com] >>Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 1:06 PM >>To: oak-dev@jackrabbit.apache.org >>Subject: Re: Minimum JDK version >> >>Hi, >> >>the interesting thing here is that we actually compile the code with - >>source and -target=1.6 in these branches [1][2]. However, the javac still >>uses the rt.jar coming from the current JDK and it does contain the >>java.nio package. It seems that the only way to check the API usage >>correctness is to switch to JDK 1.6. >> >>Or maybe there’s some way to validate whether the used packages matches >>selected JDK version (eg. via some plugin reading the @since javadocs in >>API classes)? >> >>Regards, >>Tomek >> >>[1] https://github.com/apache/jackrabbit-oak/blob/1.4/oak- >>parent/pom.xml#L97 >>[2] https://github.com/apache/jackrabbit-oak/blob/1.2/oak- >>parent/pom.xml#L95 >> >> >>-- >>Tomek Rękawek | Adobe Research | www.adobe.com >>reka...@adobe.com >> >>> On 12 Sep 2016, at 11:42, Davide Giannella wrote: >>> >>> Hello team, >>> >>> following the recent mishap about JDK version and releases highlighted >>> two main issues: >>> >>> cannot find jenkins for anything that is not 1.6 >>> >>> we should enforce the build to build with the minimum required JDK. >>> >>> Now for the second point, this is easily achievable. What we have to >>> decide is whether we want this enforcement done on all the builds, or >>> only during releases build and checks. >>> >>> I'm for having it enforced on all the builds. >>> >>> Thoughts? >>> >>> Davide >>> >>> >
Re: Minimum JDK version
Hi, On 12/09/16 13:14, Chetan Mehrotra wrote: I think Marcel created OAK-4791 for the same. So that should take care of enforcing this constraing Indeed. For trunk I just enabled the check against the 1.7 signature. I will backport the plugin configuration to the branches and change the version to 1.6 if possible. Otherwise we do it once 1.7 usages are removed on the branches. Regards Marcel
Re: Minimum JDK version
On 2016-09-12 14:09, Marcel Reutegger wrote: Hi, On 12/09/16 13:14, Chetan Mehrotra wrote: I think Marcel created OAK-4791 for the same. So that should take care of enforcing this constraing Indeed. For trunk I just enabled the check against the 1.7 signature. I will backport the plugin configuration to the branches and change the version to 1.6 if possible. Otherwise we do it once 1.7 usages are removed on the branches. Regards Marcel Thanks for taking care of this!
Re: Minimum JDK version
On 12/09/2016 13:09, Marcel Reutegger wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 12/09/16 13:14, Chetan Mehrotra wrote:
>> I think Marcel created OAK-4791 for the same. So that should take care
>> of enforcing this constraing
>
> Indeed. For trunk I just enabled the check against the 1.7 signature.
>
> I will backport the plugin configuration to the branches and change
> the version to 1.6 if possible. Otherwise we do it once 1.7 usages
> are removed on the branches.
Sorry if it's redundant but I didn't have the time yet to check the commits.
Here's, from another project I worked on, how to enforce a specific java
version at compile time.
The build will fail if it's not compiled with the appropriate java version
org.apache.maven.plugins
maven-enforcer-plugin
1.4.1
enforce-java
enforce
${java.version}
Davide
Re: Minimum JDK version
Hi Davide, > On 13 Sep 2016, at 14:57, Davide Giannella wrote: > > Sorry if it's redundant but I didn't have the time yet to check the commits. > > Here's, from another project I worked on, how to enforce a specific java > version at compile time. > > The build will fail if it's not compiled with the appropriate java version I think the enforcer plugin allows to enforce given version of javac - eg. in order to compile Oak 1.0, 1.2 or 1.4 code you have to have JDK 1.6 installed on your machine. If you try to compile the code with a newer javac version (eg. you have only 1.8 installed locally), it’ll break. On the other hand, the animal-sniffer plugin analyses the source code and makes sure it doesn’t use any API introduced in newer JDKs than configured in pom.xml. You can use it with any JDK you have. You don’t need to have JDK 1.6 installed locally to compile to the historic Oak branch. Both plugins will break the build if someone uses new, unsupported API. However, the enforcer requires the developer to install the old JDK, while animal-sniffer doesn’t, so I think the latter is a better option. Marcel has already enabled the animal-sniffer on all the branches, so I think we shouldn’t run into similar issues in the future. Regards, Tomek -- Tomek Rękawek | Adobe Research | www.adobe.com reka...@adobe.com smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Minimum JDK version for 1.4
On 2016-09-12 14:09, Marcel Reutegger wrote: Hi, On 12/09/16 13:14, Chetan Mehrotra wrote: I think Marcel created OAK-4791 for the same. So that should take care of enforcing this constraing Indeed. For trunk I just enabled the check against the 1.7 signature. I will backport the plugin configuration to the branches and change the version to 1.6 if possible. Otherwise we do it once 1.7 usages are removed on the branches. Regards Marcel Thanks, Marcel. So we now enforce JDK7 compliance on trunk, and JDK6 compliance on the release branches (1.0, 1.2, 1.4). Given the fact that we already shipped two releases of 1.4 which did require JDK7 features (and apparently nobody noticed), should we consider allowing JDK7 features in 1.4 as well? Advantages: - makes it easier to backport code from trunk to 1.4 Disadvantage: - is a somewhat big change within a release branch (but maybe nobody cares?, see above) Best regards, Julian PS: and once we have decided on this, we should have the same discussion about Jackrabbit...
Re: Minimum JDK version for 1.4
Hi, On 14/09/16 13:27, Julian Reschke wrote: So we now enforce JDK7 compliance on trunk, and JDK6 compliance on the release branches (1.0, 1.2, 1.4). Given the fact that we already shipped two releases of 1.4 which did require JDK7 features (and apparently nobody noticed), should we consider allowing JDK7 features in 1.4 as well? There are still JVMs on Java 6 that are supported by vendors, even though some require you to pay for extended support. But then, Java 7 and 8 are out for a while now and should be available on almost all platforms. I'm not particularly excited to change the supported JDK version between 1.4 releases, but I think it is fine. As of December last year we don't test on Java 6 anyway: http://jackrabbit.markmail.org/thread/t3gzwi25tcz6masg Regards Marcel
Re: Minimum JDK version for 1.4
On 14/09/2016 12:27, Julian Reschke wrote: > should we consider allowing JDK7 features in 1.4 as well? I'm perfectly fine with it. It looks like no one noticed the error and it's relatively low risk for 1.4. JD7 has been around for a while now. I would simply add a note on the download page under the 1.4 section and put out a news on the JR homepage. In case it really breaks badly someone we can consider going back. So far we didn't make that much use of JDK7 specific things as we often have to backport later on older branches. Davide
Re: Minimum JDK version for 1.4
On 2016-09-14 15:40, Davide Giannella wrote: On 14/09/2016 12:27, Julian Reschke wrote: should we consider allowing JDK7 features in 1.4 as well? I'm perfectly fine with it. It looks like no one noticed the error and it's relatively low risk for 1.4. JD7 has been around for a while now. I would simply add a note on the download page under the 1.4 section and put out a news on the JR homepage. In case it really breaks badly someone we can consider going back. So far we didn't make that much use of JDK7 specific things as we often have to backport later on older branches. Davide OK, it seems some are (mildly) in favor of this change, and so far nobody is opposed to it. Do we need more time/discussion? Best regards, Julian
Re: Minimum JDK version for 1.4
On 15/09/2016 12:05, Julian Reschke wrote: > > Do we need more time/discussion? I would say we could start an official 72hr voting on it. In case of failures we can keep discussing. Cheers Davide
