Le jeu. 3 oct. 2019 à 20:22, Tibor Digana <tibordig...@apache.org> a écrit :
> The topic related to TLS is only related to runtime, means JDK, which is > under the control of the particular user or CI. > I guess the user can easily find the answer: > > https://stackoverflow.com/questions/50824789/why-am-i-getting-received-fatal-alert-protocol-version-or-peer-not-authentic > > The thing is that we need to specify: > + advantages of Java 1.8 in code (Lambda, brief code, maybe) > + disadvantages of Java 1.8 in code (Streams performance when/how/what > approach???) > There is also a not technical view, any previous jdk is not maintained so its support is no more needed since we are far from any acceptable migration for projects which would migrate. > Write notices for developers on the internal Wiki: > + toolchains > + limitations and solutions for disadvantages > + conditions when and how to migrate from J7 to J8 > Or the most common option: stick to current mvn version. We can still get fixes releases on need backporting small fixes. It is how asf works after all. I wouldnt bother users with toolchain, it is only needed for libs and the active ones almost all migrated to j8 ;). > and then we should Vote for J8. > > And there are users who is has J6 and J7 and they may require us to > maintain the old version 3.6.x. > What to do in this case? > Is the toolchain enough? Usually it is in ordinal projects! > > Cheers > T > > > On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 5:52 PM Stephen Connolly < > stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, 3 Oct 2019 at 16:49, Karl Heinz Marbaise <khmarba...@gmx.de> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > On 03.10.19 17:03, Tibor Digana wrote: > > > > This is not very serious discussion since we saw users on our mailing > > > > list who said that he is using Java 1.6 compiler and JDK7 in Maven. > > > > > > Would that change anything? Using JDK 8 for Maven and using JDK 6 for > > > compiling/test... > > > > > > > > > > Serious discussion would uncover pros/cons and impact analysis. > > > > > > > > I would have a problem with Java 1.8 in target and source code but I > > > > have problem that we excluded our users from the VOTE. > > > > > > > Regarding Java 1.7 we clearly uncovered the migration plan, versions > of > > > > plugins, core etc. Here nothing like that exists - only that somebody > > > > created a Jira ticket. > > > > > > Hm...all plugins etc. running on JDK 7+...so in the first step we just > > > upgrade the minimum for Maven Core only (3.7.0)... (Apart from having a > > > plugin which is JDK8 minimum already). > > > > > > Plugins can upgrade to JDK 8 minimum as needed/wished afterwards (may > be > > > we could do a version identification...but at the moment I don't see a > > > need for that cause they work on JDK7+). > > > > > > > Also, to my mind, unless the plugin specifically needs features in Maven > > 3.7.0 there is added reason for the plugin to stay on JDK7 until it bumps > > the core version of Maven it depends on (or it finds a use-case requiring > > Java 8) > > > > Finally, upgrading to Java 8 is basically a must have for easier TLS > > certificate validation as the JDK7 distributions do not all have good > > current TLS root certs > > > > > > > Kind regards > > > Karl Heinz Marbaise > > > > > > > > > > > Technically I would be interested if somebody could explain what NEW > > > > Security API is in Java 1.8 and performance impact of Streams API. > > > > That's the impact in the source code. > > > > Somebody has other questions too. > > > > Then we can write Wiki as well as rules, conditions and plan. > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > Tibor17 > > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 4:55 PM Karl Heinz Marbaise < > khmarba...@gmx.de > > > > <mailto:khmarba...@gmx.de>> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 03.10.19 14:15, Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote: > > > > > Strong -1 on Java 8 as the minimum version. Google Cloud > > Platform > > > has > > > > > lots of products and customers that still require Java 7. If > > Maven > > > > > requires Java 8, we'd have to stick to the latest of whichever > > > > release > > > > > does support Java 7 for at least a year and I'm guessing > longer. > > > > > > > > Hm.. first Java 7 is out for eight years now (2011) (End of live) > > and > > > > has no public updates for security/bug fixes etc. since 2015 > > > > > > > > Furthermore Java 8 is out for five years (2014) so to be honest I > > > > wouldn't trust an environment which is not upgrading etc. in > > > particular > > > > in a clould environment... > > > > > > > > Why hadn't started Google to update their environment over the > time > > > to > > > > JDK 8 etc. (I think they have much more resources than anyone). > > > > > > > > > > > > One more thing is: > > > > There is a difference between running Maven to build for > example > > > > with JDK 8 and running your resulting artifacts (see toolchain > > > > comment > > > > from Stephen Connolly.. > > > > > > > > Kind regards > > > > Karl Heinz Marbaise > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]: > > > > > > https://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/java-se-support-roadmap.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 8:04 AM Robert Scholte > > > > <rfscho...@apache.org <mailto:rfscho...@apache.org>> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> Hi, > > > > >> > > > > >> TLDR; introduce maven.experimental.buildconsumer and push > Java > > > > requirement > > > > >> to Java 8 > > > > >> > > > > >> now that Maven 3.6.2 is out for a couple of weeks, it seems > > like > > > > we didn't > > > > >> face real regressions. > > > > >> The only one might be tricky is the issue related to Tycho. > > > > >> > > > > >> However, I think we're ready to push Maven to the next level. > > > > >> > > > > >> For those actively reading this list, they should recognize > the > > > > need for > > > > >> splitting up the pom as it is on the local system versus the > > pom > > > > being > > > > >> uploaded. Once we truly control this mechanism we can think > of > > > > >> improvements on model 5.0.0 and new fileformats. > > > > >> > > > > >> I've created and implemented MNG-6656[1]. It also contains a > > zip > > > > with an > > > > >> example (original, patched, README) to understand what's > > > happening. > > > > >> > > > > >> In order to make this successful, we need IDEs and CI Servers > > to > > > > >> understand and support these changes. The likely need to > > > > implement one of > > > > >> the interfaces[2]. > > > > >> The new interface uses Java8 Functions (and especially > > > > SAXEventFactory is > > > > >> way easier to read+maintain with Java 8). I've tried to keep > > > > Maven Java 7 > > > > >> compatible, but that was too hard to do. > > > > >> So I'd like to use this opportunity to move Maven forward and > > > start > > > > >> requiring Java 8. > > > > >> > > > > >> There are some other improvements I'd like to add (those > > > > messages will > > > > >> follow), so this will imply that it will take some time > before > > > > we do a new > > > > >> release. > > > > >> > > > > >> WDTY, > > > > >> Robert > > > > >> > > > > >> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MNG-6656 > > > > >> [2] > https://github.com/apache/maven/compare/MNG-6656?expand=1 > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > > > > > > > > >
