Okay, let’s get back to topic. I feel that the community want’s to wait some more until at least all maven plugins we use work with Java 9?
Regards, Benedikt > Am 15.10.2017 um 01:30 schrieb Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com>: > > Which is mainly because the version of Java in Android is intentionally > lacking about half of the standard library. Perhaps this will improve in > the future now that they're adopting OpenJDK, though. > > On 14 October 2017 at 17:04, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote: > >> I need to point out that even after removing that there would be a lot of >> stuff in log4j-core that doesn’t work in Android. >> >> Ralph >> >>> On Oct 14, 2017, at 12:02 PM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> I am wondering if this is a little too early. A lot of tooling our there >>> does not play well with Java 9 class files. >>> >>> The last time I tried to use Log4j 2 (which contains Java 9 classes files >>> in the right multi-jar spot) with an Android app, the Android tooling >> threw >>> up all over itself because it was incorrectly trying to do something with >>> these Java 9 class file :-( >>> >>> Gary >>> >>> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 7:53 AM, Stephen Colebourne < >> scolebou...@joda.org> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On 14 October 2017 at 14:05, Rob Tompkins <chtom...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On Oct 14, 2017, at 8:43 AM, Benedikt Ritter <brit...@apache.org> >>>> wrote: >>>>> Feels like a change that would warrant a major version change, but that >>>> would have us maintaining another major version branch. >>>> >>>> No need for a major version change. Its just one more .class file in >>>> the jar file. The jar file is still usable on Java 7 and 8, its just >>>> that the *build* is Java 9 specific. >>>> >>>> As Pascal says, really we want all the maven plugins to be ready for >>>> this, but we don't control those timescales. >>>> >>>> Options to fix the site plugin problem: >>>> >>>> 1) Alter the PR so that releases have to be in two stages - jar file >>>> build/deploy on Java 9 and site on Java 8. The risk is that someone >>>> forgets to do the release using Java 9. >>>> >>>> 2) Compile the module-info.java file on Java 9 and check it in (as a >>>> binary module-info.class file). Then the build could stay on Java 7/8. >>>> The problem however is that whenever a new package is added, the >>>> module-info.class file would have to be recreated and re-checked in, >>>> an error-prone process. >>>> >>>> Stephen >>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >>>> >>>> >> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >> >> > > > -- > Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
