On 06.12.23 00:32, Owen Thomas wrote:
This matrix is just doing my head in, because all I can gather from the page disclosed is a mechanism - I don't understand why the mechanism needs to exist in the first place.

because gradle uses kotlin and groovy as the config file format language, languages which are implemented on top of java (its more complicated but this is the simple version). They will always lack a bit behind in supporting the latest java version. Gradle has to wait for all dependencies to be ready before it can claim in a release that it supports Java X.

The exact same thing happens in NB, gradle 8.5 was released too late to be tested and integrated into NB 20, so it ships with gradle 8.4. NB 21 will whip with whatever is ready when the release candidate phase starts.

btw upgrading gradle in NB is relatively easy, you can do it yourself, open a PR and you have a NB dev build which includes a jdk 21 compatible gradle release, example: https://github.com/apache/netbeans/pull/6553


Now lets compare this with other build tools like apache maven or ant, they use XML as their file format. The last spec change to XML was in the year 1820 (estimated). I just tested it, and even a 14 years old release of maven (2.1) works fine on JDK 21 (but please don't try this at home, running end-of-life network connected libs is not a good idea - this was just an experiment to proof a point). This problem essentially doesn't exist with maven and ant.

hope this helps,

-mbien



I don't think the version of a build tool should need to be matched with a version of the JVM - but this is indeed probably merey my ignorance of the justification for this necessity speaking. Is there a page that informs my ignorance?

On Wed, 6 Dec 2023 at 03:23, Bernd Michaely <i...@bernd-michaely.de> wrote:

    https://docs.gradle.org/current/userguide/compatibility.html

    On 04.12.23 01:24, Owen Thomas wrote:
    >
    > Is there a page I can read that outlines how Gradle will work with
    > Java in the future? This stuff is giving me a headache.
    >

Reply via email to