Seems people missed this (somewhat related) thread: https://lists.apache.org/thread/kpsrb28nst84vtohwngy3140g1r0ydd4
Thanks On Mon, Jun 5, 2023, 20:40 Hunter C Payne <hunterpayne2...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote: > Hi, Karl, I'm not sure I agree you have "stated a benefit" so far. > There have been plenty of hand-wavy arguments but nothing really solid. > That's why you are getting so much push back. Point to a specific feature > you need or some other thing that would help the project in some > significant way. At the moment, the argument is basically, "its newer so > its better", I'm sorry but that simply is not true. Make a better case and > you will get less pushback. > Hunter > > On Monday, June 5, 2023 at 06:03:26 AM PDT, Karl Heinz Marbaise < > khmarba...@gmx.de> wrote: > > Hi, > > On 03.06.23 11:46, Hervé Boutemy wrote: > > +1 > > > > I really don't what benefit we get from going to Java 17 > > which was already part of the email: > > > > Based on the argument we don't need features of JDK17+ I see a number > > of things which could make our handling/maintenance easier for example > > using sealed classes to prevent exposing internal things to public which > > could be used etc. also some other small features (`var` for example; > > Text-Blocks in Tests etc) or using records in some situation (really > immutability).. > > > > > > > Kind regards > Karl Heinz Marbaise > > > > > I perfectly see the impact we'll have on our users: for what benefit? > > > > notice that this will also impact all plugins: and given the few work > done on > > plugins to clearly show what plugin version remains compatible with a JDK > > release, I feel we're not taking the topic the right way > > > > Le vendredi 2 juin 2023, 01:50:53 CEST Hunter C Payne a écrit : > >> I'm not sure I would worry too much about that David. I think most > devs > >> who want better syntax moved from Java sometime ago. They might still > be > >> on the JVM just not writing Java. Also, Maven is a mature project. I > >> don't think devs considering contributing to it are thinking about using > >> the latest and greatest version of Java. Compatibility is probably a > >> bigger concern for the user base. Just my opinion. > >> > >> Hunter > >> On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 04:17:26 PM PDT, David Jencks > >> <david.a.jen...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> I wonder if having maven require java 8 syntax discourages any > potential > >> contributors who are used to coding using more recent developments. I > have > >> no idea how to tell, but maybe someone else does. > >> > >> David Jencks > >> > >>> On Jun 1, 2023, at 3:02 PM, Karl Heinz Marbaise <khmarba...@gmx.de> > wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> my clear opinion is to go with most recent JDK LTS version for the > >>> release point of Maven 4.0.0 which I assume will be JDK 21... > >>> > >>> That means clear the build time requirement which is completely > >>> different from runtime of an application. > >>> > >>> > >>> Older JDK's are supported by some vendors by having particular special > >>> support which most of the time requires special contracts (means also > >>> paying money for it)..some of them offering builds without paying money > >>> yes.. > >>> > >>> Older runtime target are supported with different approaches like > >>> Toolchain or via `--release XX` which exists since JDK9+. > >>> > >>> > >>> Furthermore if someone is not capable of upgrading the build > environment > >>> to JDK9+ they can continue to use Maven 3.8.X or Maven 3.9.X... > >>> > >>> If it would be requirement to port things back to 3.8.X or 3.9.X it > >>> could be handled by someone who has the time etc. to do that ... if > not, > >>> those people might think of paying someone to do that work... > >>> > >>> > >>> The given argument about JPMS for migration causes issues is from my > >>> point of view false-positive because migration to newer JDK versions > >>> does not require JPMS usage... > >>> > >>> Even platforms like AWS support JDK17 in the meantime which is the > >>> runtime... > >>> > >>> > >>> Based on the maintenance part it would mean in consequence to downgrade > >>> to even JDK7... (or even lower) because you can get support for older > >>> JDK version in some ways... (JDK7 from azul for example) > >>> > >>> Kind regards > >>> Karl Heinz Marbaise > >>> > >>> [1] > https://www.oracle.com/java/technologies/java-se-support-roadmap.html > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > >
