On 2017-11-29, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
> In their JEP[1] (based on which this got implemented), it does
> recommend relying on this "java.specification.version" whose value is
> expected to be an integer (for Java releases starting Java 9).
Yes, I've implemented a possible way to deal with it in a br
In their JEP[1] (based on which this got implemented), it does recommend
relying on this "java.specification.version" whose value is expected to
be an integer (for Java releases starting Java 9). There's a table in
that [1] which has the values for this system property for hypothetical
release
On 2017-11-28, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> Maybe we really need to start parsing the java.version system property
java.specification.version is probably the better candidate as it is
supposed to only contain "10".
Stefan
-
To unsub
Hi
with
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk-dev/2017-November/89.html
we'll be seeing a new "major release" of Java every six months.
So far we've created new constants and detected the java version via
classes we know have been added in JavaEnvUtils but TBH I'm not sure
we'll be able
