> On Mar 12, 2018, at 9:27 AM, Jörg Schaible <joerg.schai...@gmx.de> wrote: > > Hi Ralph, > > On Wed, 07 Mar 2018 11:56:32 -0700 Ralph Goers wrote: > >>> On Mar 7, 2018, at 2:47 AM, Stephen Colebourne <scolebou...@joda.org> >>> wrote: >>> >>> 1) Moving to Java 9 as a base would be a terrible choice. Java 9 is a >>> six-month release which is about to be replaced by Java 10, which will >>> then be replaced by Java 11. Thus, Java 8 is the only sensible baseline >>> right now. >>> >>> 2) Compiling a single jar file such that it works on Java 8 but has a >>> module-info.class for Java 9 using Maven is a right pain in the >>> backside. Most maven plugins cannot seamlessly handle it making the >>> pom.xml much more complex. Note that you do not need a multi-release >>> jar file to make it work. See >>> https://github.com/ThreeTen/threeten-extra/blob/master/pom.xml >>> <https://github.com/ThreeTen/threeten-extra/blob/master/pom.xml> >> >> Actually, you really do need to use a multi-release jar to include a >> module-info class file. Otherwise it may be sitting alongside of classes >> compiled for an earlier java release and various tools will fail because >> of it. > > Not necessarily. XStream contains for more than a decade class files > targeting different Java versions. Works > normally fine as long as nobody tries to load a class that cannot handled by > the current runtime. Android has > its problems with it, but it has already problems with Java 8 ;-)
You statement just proved my point. “Works fine as long as …”. So as soon as you want to support those various tools you have to stop doing that. Ralph --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
