Le sam. 23 juil. 2022 à 21:05, Enno Thieleke <enno.thiel...@holisticon.de>
a écrit :
> 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.
>
I would lower the figure - keep in mind 95-99% of people also uses libs and
are affected by what I described - but agree "most" would see it...at the
cost of configuring toolchain and even just the test/compiler version in
the pom which breaks our convention over config core design IMHO.
So until we change our design to isolate all our core code and mojo run
from contextual java version (most mojo are not toolchain friendly, this
requires a mojo executor evolution to make the ecosystem functional), and
likely means we can:
1. Have background jvm runners (reusable) to avoid the cold perf pitfall of
toolchain
2. Toolchain functional for all mojo without any mojo change
3. A global property to limit the configuration for all mojo
I dont think it would work well in practise.
I also dont want to exclude 50% of users (8+11) just cause we think we
would maybe gain from that - there is very few valid reason in terms of
compilation to do that on our side.
Side note: technically, if reached, it means we can make mvn a native
binary with graalvm and run mojo in java runner so java wouldnt be a real
constraint for us/users but this has high impacts in terms of design and
code update requirements.
> 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.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
