Il dom 13 ago 2017, 17:31 Tibor Digana <tibor.dig...@googlemail.com> ha scritto:
> I found an issue. JDK printed this on std/out: > WARNING: Using incubator modules: jdk.incubator.httpclient > IMHO This is because we are importing all system modules. Maybe importing only java.se.ee would cover most of the cases. I did not notice the warning on test I have run today Enrico > It hapens after my test: > > import org.junit.Test; > > public class J9Test > { > @Test > public void testMiscellaneousAPI() throws java.sql.SQLException > { > System.out.println( "loaded class " + > java.sql.SQLException.class.getName() ); > System.out.println( "loaded class " + > javax.xml.ws.Holder.class.getName() ); > System.out.println( "loaded class " + > javax.xml.bind.JAXBException.class.getName() ); > System.out.println( "loaded class " + > org.omg.CORBA.BAD_INV_ORDER.class.getName() ); > System.out.println( "loaded class " + > javax.xml.xpath.XPath.class.getName() ); > System.out.println( "java.specification.version=" + > System.getProperty( "java.specification.version" ) ); > } > > @Test > public void test_corba_mod() throws org.omg.CORBA.BAD_INV_ORDER > { > } > } > > > On Sun, Aug 13, 2017 at 5:29 PM, Tibor Digana <tibor.dig...@googlemail.com > > > wrote: > > > But why to add it? It's a hack. I do not use module-info.java and so > there > > is no reason to break the backwards compatibility. > > > > This is no more about Maven. It is about entire Java world. > > If we in Maven do it then everybody has to. > > And I am sure that the voices says that Kotlin is better and Scala is > > better would make sense. Why to help these attempts to happen? No reason! > > > > On Sun, Aug 13, 2017 at 5:11 PM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > >> Is there a Maven way to add ALL-SYSTEM to everything? Using plugin > >> specific > >> tags like below is going to be painful. > >> > >> Gary > >> > >> On Aug 13, 2017 07:30, "Tibor Digana" <tibordig...@apache.org> wrote: > >> > >> > Hi @Enrico, > >> > > >> > I am very unhappy with Java 9 status and very afraid. > >> > I do not like the style how Oracle has changed Java to Java 9 and > forced > >> > all the world to use additional effort to adapt to Oracle activities. > >> > > >> > I am facing more unhappy Java development teams with Java 9 in the > >> future. > >> > For instance as I have tried to implement users wish in Maven Surefire > >> > project and invested my personal time and effort to adapt to Oracle > >> > requirements, this still does not convince me to say that Java 9 is > >> ready > >> > to go. > >> > > >> > This is my comment from Jira: > >> > > >> > "This is not nice on Java 9 that they broke backwards compatibility > and > >> > force the world to use the switch to use --add-modules ALL-SYSTEM > >> instead > >> > of providing all modules installed in JRE. For instance, small JRE > >> having > >> > {{java.base}} has advantage on embedded systems and the only should be > >> > propagated. Big scope JRE should propagate all installed modules. > >> > But for me it does not make security sense and common sense to force > >> JRE to > >> > provide modules. It should be opposite and the admin/Jenkins should > >> > configure big scope JRE with selected modules propagated to Java > runtime > >> > applications. > >> > If this admin does not do that then all modules should be available by > >> > default which is backwards compatibility for me and we do not have to > to > >> > implement these stupid tricks." > >> > > >> > As far as we remember Java Security, the policies can be configured. > >> > I can imaging same paradigm in Jigsaw/Java 9 and then the admin who > has > >> > installed JDK or JRE would "switch off" some modules. But opposite, > that > >> > means the script which starts Java app currently enables "all" modules > >> is > >> > against security and against the principle of modular system because > the > >> > modules do not make sense then. > >> > > >> > What makes sense to me is to enable "all java/javax" modules except > for > >> the > >> > "com.sun" proprietary ones by default. > >> > So yes enable them by default and please release specific JRE > >> installations > >> > with specific bunch of Java modules for specific use cases. > >> > This means those modules in that particular release are all enabled by > >> > default if not configured otherwise by admin, e.g. Jenkins, operation > >> > staff, etc. (do NOT mean Sun packages - never visible). > >> > > >> > Here it comes. The idea that we can install small 5MB/JRE on small > Linux > >> > device would be possible because Oracle would release such tiny JRE > >> using > >> > only "java.lang" and then another JRE installation using java.lang and > >> > java.utils, and later NIO and later "java.desktop", etc. > >> > > >> > Then vendors of web browsers and Linux dist would be happy to > integrate > >> > small JRE into and use JavaFX. > >> > > >> > But now it is not possible because the modules are basically three: > >> > > >> > java.base == 37MB > >> > java.desktop == 36MB > >> > java.xml ==20MB > >> > > >> > All the other modules are pretty small but these three seen in > "src.zip" > >> > make the modular system unbalanced in size and nobody would ever wish > to > >> > integrate them because they are still big. That means the problem that > >> > Oracle has with NIO implementation in com.sun package propagated to > >> > "java.util", nobody in the world care and nobody should see as a > >> problem to > >> > split "java.base" much more. > >> > > >> > If splitting "java.base" happened then not certified JVMs developed at > >> > Universities would for instance implement only "java.lang" and embed > it > >> in > >> > to JVM and develop a new programming language on the top of Java. But > >> > implementing 10 packages in java.base is an effort again. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > One more thing is regarding the size of the modules. > >> > You really did not help embedded systems and installations of > browsers. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 8:51 AM, Enrico Olivelli <eolive...@gmail.com > > > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> > > I would like to share my current pom configuration which lets me to > >> > > build and test java8 apps on latest and greatest jdk9 > >> > > > >> > > This profile is activated when using jdk9. > >> > > > >> > > This is based on a suggestion of Robert, its suggestion for the > >> > > javadoc plugin is working great with surefire too > >> > > > >> > > <profile> > >> > > <id>jdk9</id> > >> > > <activation> > >> > > <jdk>[9,)</jdk> > >> > > </activation> > >> > > <build> > >> > > <plugins> > >> > > <plugin> > >> > > <groupId>org.apache.maven.plugins</groupId> > >> > > > <artifactId>maven-javadoc-plugin</artifactId> > >> > > <configuration> > >> > > <additionalparam>--add-modules > >> > > ALL-SYSTEM</additionalparam> > >> > > </configuration> > >> > > </plugin> > >> > > <plugin> > >> > > <groupId>org.apache.maven.plugins</groupId> > >> > > <artifactId>maven-surefire-pl > >> ugin</artifactId> > >> > > <version>2.20</version> > >> > > <configuration> > >> > > <argLine>--add-modules > >> ALL-SYSTEM</argLine> > >> > > </configuration> > >> > > </plugin> > >> > > </plugins> > >> > > </build> > >> > > </profile> > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > -- Enrico > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > 2017-04-24 19:08 GMT+02:00 Karl Heinz Marbaise <khmarba...@gmx.de>: > >> > > > Hi, > >> > > > > >> > > > yes I will do within this week... > >> > > > > >> > > > Kind regards > >> > > > Karl Heinz Marbaise > >> > > > On 23/04/17 21:37, Enrico Olivelli wrote: > >> > > >> > >> > > >> Thank you Robert, > >> > > >> I saw that you have merged my patch. > >> > > >> > >> > > >> Is there any plan to release the new version of the war plugin? > >> > > >> > >> > > >> Enrico > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> Il gio 13 apr 2017, 12:21 Paul Hammant <p...@hammant.org> ha > >> scritto: > >> > > >> > >> > > >>>> > >> > > >>>> > >> > > >>>>> I don't see any activity either, so my idea is to replace > >> XStream, > >> > > see > >> > > >>>> > >> > > >>>> MWAR-397[1] > >> > > >>>> > >> > > >>> > >> > > >>> Just for the record, Jörg is working through the Java9 issues > for > >> > > XStream > >> > > >>> presently - https://github.com/x-stream/xstream/commits/master > >> > > >>> > >> > > >>> - Paul > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > >> --------- > >> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > >> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > >> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Cheers > > Tibor > > > > > > -- > Cheers > Tibor > -- -- Enrico Olivelli