hey Mike, On 10.08.2020 09:16, Michaud Michael wrote: > Ede, > >>> did i write “make our code obsolete with new versions of java”? while i'm >>> not generally opposed to /top posting/, this is exactly what /inline >>> replying/ is for ;) just place your question under the unclear lines in the >>> dialog below and everyone and me understands what you are referring too :) > > Don't take this question as a direct answer to your remarks ! This is a > general question. Not sure where I get the feeling that at some point, the > module system will force java developpers to adapt their code to a new way of > managing dependencies. I may be wrong.
hmm, sounded like. but you raise a valid point there. a quick search says, that we'll _not_ be forced to use it (what i assumed so far), but that devs may choose to use it, or not https://stackoverflow.com/questions/20634993/how-is-java-8-modules-different-from-osgi https://stackoverflow.com/questions/7498540/osgi-java-modularity-and-jigsaw/7500268#7500268 these answers are very old, but they sound probably as our classloader is still working fine even with the latest java14 apropos pluginclassloader, maybe we can finally extend the classloader so that it'll allow to load different lib versions in each extension. that'd make extension maintenance and core updating a lot easier. > Note that I also like inline replying when questions/answers are clearly > formatted (e.g. with incremented >>), but it is not always the case. Maybe a > mailingbox configuration problem on my side. might be, thunderbird is doing a stellar job in this regard ;).. ede > > Michaël > >> envoyé : 9 août 2020 à 20:46 >> de : edgar.sol...@web.de >> à : jump-pilot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net >> objet : Re: [JPP-Devel] OJ 2.x Was:Re: JTS update: first experiments >> >> >> did i write "make our code obsolete with new versions of java"? while i'm >> not generally opposed to /top posting/, this is exactly what /inline >> replying/ is for ;) just place your question under the unclear lines in the >> dialog below and everyone and me understands what you are referring too :) >> >> ..ede >> >> On 09.08.2020 20:38, Michaud Michael wrote: >> >>> Thanks for your detailed answer Ede, >>> >>> Not sure I get everything about the pom's problem, but I agree with all >>> your proposition concerning OpenJUMP evolution. >>> >>> One point which is not clear to me is what exactly will make our code >>> obsolete with new versions of java ? Seems that at the moment, we can write >>> java 8 code and compile it and run it with java 11 or more isn't it ? >>> >>> Michaël >>> _______________________________________________ Jump-pilot-devel mailing list Jump-pilot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jump-pilot-devel
