Fwiw:
Romain, I think you're exaggerating. The answer is, like in most cases: "it
depends".
Most people, we're most likely talking 95-99% here, will happily use JDK 17
with Maven 4.
Some people might need to compile for lower sources and targets, but running
tests for those builds in JDK 17 instead of, let's say 11, _will suffice in
most cases_.
Yes, there will be edge cases where people will be forced to use different JDKs
at least for tests, some even for builds. But that's possible, so they won't
get left behind.
Regarding mvnd: It's not a silver bullet. It never was and it never will be.
Whenever a build spawns new JVMs (for tests or other tasks), it doesn't benefit
from mvnd anymore (in as much as it would without spawning new JVMs).
To not use the latest (LTS) JDK in order to "better" support the 1-5% of the
Maven users, who're still using obsolete JVMs (I'm obviously referring to
Karl's assumption, which I agree with), would be a kick in the teeth of all
Maven developers, who finally want to embrace the present (not even the future).
Long story short, +1 for JDK 17 as minimum for Maven 4.
Kind regards,
Enno
________________________________
From: Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2022 6:55 PM
To: Maven Developers List <dev@maven.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0
Le sam. 23 juil. 2022 à 17:25, Benjamin Marwell <bmarw...@apache.org> a
écrit :
> No, 2 JDKs are not required by default. Only if you use --release={<17} and
> don't trust running tests on 17 are the same as running tests on 8.
> Yes, there are changes (certificates, XML libs, rhino, etc).
>
As explained it means you dont write a single test or dont care of the test
results so yes it needs 2 jdk.
> So, for most projects that's probably not needed. For those who think it is
> needed, I don't have a lot of pity. But it will be a requirement for quite
> a few commercial projects, like Containers (JavaEE, as they will need to be
> Java 8 as long as 2030ish due to extended support contracts).
>
> That said, I'm still thinking Java 17 will be a sane default.
>
>
> On Sat, 23 Jul 2022, 10:50 Delany, <delany.middle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Using mvnd with toolchains doesn't improve the situation, in fact
> > toolchains seem to invalidate any benefit of using mvnd.
> > Even if this was resolved, is it fair to require mvnd?
> > Delany
> >
> >
> > On Sat, 23 Jul 2022 at 10:17, Mark Derricutt <m...@talios.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Is that due to cold starting the JVM each time?
> > >
> > > I wonder if mvnd supports toolchains effectively? Or if that could be
> an
> > > avenue to try.
> > > --
> > > "Great artists are extremely selfish and arrogant things" — Steven
> > Wilson,
> > > Porcupine Tree
> > >
> > > On 23/07/2022 at 8:13:23 PM, Delany <delany.middle...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I tried toolchains but dropped it because of the exorbitant
> performance
> > > > costs.
> > > > A multi-module build that normally built in 3:50 took 10:34, and
> that's
> > > > with toolchaining only maven-compiler-plugin.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
