>From a pragmatic POV, the oldest Java byte codes you can get Java 9 to emit are for Java 1.6. Since we will want, I assume, to produce a module info class in the jar, we will need to use Java 9 for that (to keep an RM's life manageable.)
This means to me that we should set the bar at Java 1.6 for the bare minimum, which seams reasonable in 2017 soon to be 2018 and considering Java 6 and 7 are EOL. Gary On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Benedikt Ritter <brit...@apache.org> wrote: > Hello, > > maybe we should decide on what we want to achieve here, before I start the > endeavor of creating an RC for such an old component. > > My understanding of Logging is, that it is in semi dormant mode. That we > don’t want to add any new features and instead point users to Log4j2. Since > Logging has a wide installation base we decided not to upgrade the Java > version requirement and instead stay at Java 1.2 and only release super > critical fixes/updates. > Upgrading to Java 6 seems to contradict this plan. So where do we want to > go with Logging? > > Regards, > Benedikt > > > Am 28.10.2017 um 18:20 schrieb Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com>: > > > > That isn’t strictly true Gary, There are ways to build the module-info > without upgrading the main code to Java 9. That said, it is a bit of a hack > to do it. > > > > Ralph > > > >> On Oct 28, 2017, at 8:19 AM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> Let's update to at least a minimum of Java 6 such that the build can run > >> with Java 9. Builing with Java 9 will be a requirement to add module > info. > >> > >> Gary > >> > >> On Oct 28, 2017 01:21, "Benedikt Ritter" <brit...@apache.org> wrote: > >> > >>> Hi all, > >>> > >>> After I was able to update the the build to the latest parent POM, I’m > >>> running into animal sniffer problems. The build is defined to target > Java > >>> 1.2 but there are classes which require later JDKs: > >>> > >>> - Jdk13LumberjackLogger > >>> - Jdk14Logger > >>> > >>> This breaks the build because animal sniffer reports that these classes > >>> don’t work on Java 1.2. I don’t understand how this is supposed to > work. > >>> Did we ship those classes and users have to decide whether they want to > >>> load them or not depending on the JRE they are running on? Do we want > to > >>> exclude the two classes from animal sniffer? > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> Benedikt > >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> 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 > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > >
