Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

On Fri, Jun 9, 2023 at 4:20 PM Guillaume Nodet wrote: > > I'd really like to > * use JEP 442 to get rid of the JNI and native libs in jline, jansi and > mvnd (but that's for JDK 21) JEP 442 won't be ready for I'm not sure how many JDKs yet. I wouldn't expect Maven to depend on it this decade.

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

Am 2023-06-07 um 07:57 schrieb Hunter C Payne: Completely agree.  Maven's strength is that it is declarative.  Anyone old enough to remember autoconf, autoreconf, etc never wants to go back to that world. Hunter I am not that old, but hacked a lot around autoconf. A total total pain in

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

> I'd really like to >* use JEP 442 to get rid of the JNI and native libs in jline, jansi and > mvnd (but that's for JDK 21) Just in case you can use this from Java 17 on but would need a Multi-Release-Jar due to the API changes between Java 19 / 21, I'm using this already in one of my

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

On Sat, 10 Jun 2023 at 06:20, Guillaume Nodet wrote: > > I'd really like to > * use JEP 442 to get rid of the JNI and native libs in jline, jansi and > mvnd (but that's for JDK 21) I understand your pain here. Temporary we are using that for Jetty. Even if a package such jdk.incubator.foreign

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

I'd really like to * use JEP 442 to get rid of the JNI and native libs in jline, jansi and mvnd (but that's for JDK 21) * use JEP 380 (unix domain sockets) to be able to cleanly implement https://github.com/apache/maven-resolver/pull/269 * use some helper methods that have been added:

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

Not to obstruct your train of thought, but I want to add that the pragmatic imperative is a double-edged sword. Ruling out the possibility of side effects also rules out any unexpected benefits. So often I've found doors were opened because I expanded my vision and did things that weren't

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

this jdk discussion could be ended if someone could say we need jdk17 as a minimum because we really need this jdk feature. Frankly, I don’t care about being jdk17 minimum and I'm fine with that but what sort of feature do we really need? nobody prevents users from using 17 or 21 but on the other

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

@Michael: the user base, both will give you an idea of java ecosystem for coming projects and therefore can define a baseline which is not bothering for our users. Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

I can concur to this with a user message: https://www.mail-archive.com/users@tomcat.apache.org/msg141662.html On 2023/06/08 09:51:45 Karl Heinz Marbaise wrote: > Hi to all, > > The most recent version of Tomcat 11.0.0-M7 has lifted it's JDK minimum > to JDK21 !!! > >

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

I don't understand what relation you are trying to establish between us and Spring Framework. Both are unrelated. On 2023/06/08 10:59:09 Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: > @Michael: point is that users will get java 21 anyway so can be a neat > default. Guess our choice is either spring (17) or EE (21)

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

@Michael: point is that users will get java 21 anyway so can be a neat default. Guess our choice is either spring (17) or EE (21) today. Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog |

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

On 2023/06/08 09:51:45 Karl Heinz Marbaise wrote: > Hi to all, > > The most recent version of Tomcat 11.0.0-M7 has lifted it's JDK minimum > to JDK21 !!! > > https://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-11.0-doc/changelog.html#Tomcat_11.0.0-M7_(markt) That's a fake argument. Not Tomcat requires it, but

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

Hi to all, The most recent version of Tomcat 11.0.0-M7 has lifted it's JDK minimum to JDK21 !!! https://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-11.0-doc/changelog.html#Tomcat_11.0.0-M7_(markt) Kind regards Karl Heinz Marbaise - To

Re: HOCON support (was Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0)

Big +1 for an alternative format, but not sure HOCON is the best of all those out there. It surely is one of the better ones, though. Big plus is easiness to humans, no deps, external docs. However, TOML gained some popularity. I'd say Maven should ship no more than one alternative to XML. And

Re: HOCON support (was Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0)

Fully got it Hunter...but this has the same yaml pitfall: designed for human, not embraced as much as planned (thanks k8s to showed it)...you would also note that all that is doable in xml so question remains: how much do we want to break our ecosystem? Personally I'd love the main core descriptor

Re: HOCON support (was Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0)

I can answer the question about why HOCON.  1) it has nice syntax, 2) you can use values in any part, in any other part which means you don't have to write the plugin name's 3 or 4 times unnecessarily (which you can do only with properties currently) and 3) because you can include external

Re: HOCON support (was Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0)

Le mer. 7 juin 2023 à 19:24, Guillaume Nodet a écrit : > Mmh ,thé XML has not been really modified since maven 3.0, so I think it's > quite stable now :-) > Im happy with that Guillaume but would mean we dont add all the attributes/tags you want - this is the part I'd like to stabilize, how we

Re: HOCON support (was Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0)

Mmh ,thé XML has not been really modified since maven 3.0, so I think it's quite stable now :-) Le mer. 7 juin 2023, 18:06, Romain Manni-Bucau a écrit : > Maybe let's stabilize XML and ensure we can make it evolving properly in > time before supporting any other format which will impact

Re: HOCON support (was Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0)

Dead by its usage by end users, was abandonned years ago by its dzv, then reudated then re etc.didnt say nobody uses it, just it is not sane for us probably to absorb such project. Issue with conversion the one mentionned: you need to run anything before loading it, -1 if an ide or any tool

Re: HOCON support (was Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0)

Please note that Tycho uses polyglot very extensively (and develop it actively), so please don't assume it is "dead" just because you are not aware of its usages! For me using XML or JSON or ... for THE SAME THING does not add much value, but Tycho extends polyglot to the extend of deriving

Re: HOCON support (was Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0)

So perhaps it is easier to translate other formats to XML instead of adding support directly to the main code.  My idea wasn't so much to replace XML, rather it was to translate other formats to XML and then use the existing XML implementations.  I think that makes the work easier without

Re: HOCON support (was Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0)

Maybe let's stabilize XML and ensure we can make it evolving properly in time before supporting any other format which will impact negatively the ecosystem IMHO since a lot of descriptor parsers are not org.apache.maven (which is a very good thing IMHO, means we have a portable enough format to be

HOCON support (was Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0)

A very rough cut at supporting HOCON is available at https://github.com/gnodet/maven-hocon-extension. It currently requires https://github.com/gnodet/maven/tree/polyglot (mainly to add the maven model as an attached artifact during the build so that it can be consumed by the hocon parser

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

On Tue, Jun 6, 2023 at 7:52 PM Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: > So are we in "I see it as somebody forcing me to move forward" vs "I see it > as the project attraction decreasing and the community misbehaving"? > > Any way we find a compromise or should we just vote and be it? > With my Eclipse PMC

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

Le mardi 6 juin 2023, 20:19:23 CEST Guillaume Nodet a écrit : > One question for people that want JDK 8 support. What IDE do they use to > develop ? Because none of the actual IDE is running JDK 8, though they can > be used by JDK 8, just like maven with toolchains. good point, thanks for adding

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

requirements history column has just been added to dist tool report: https://ci-maven.apache.org/job/Maven/job/maven-box/job/maven-dist-tool/job/master/site/dist-tool-prerequisites.html on 52 plugins we maintain, 3 have published prerequisites history to help users know what version to use when

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

Completely agree.  Maven's strength is that it is declarative.  Anyone old enough to remember autoconf, autoreconf, etc never wants to go back to that world. Hunter On Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 10:35:07 PM PDT, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: Polyglot was a good idea but a key feature of

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

Polyglot was a good idea but a key feature of maven is to NOT rely on scripting to init the context (deps typically) to let IDE load it quickly in their format. Typically opening a gradle script in idea is often a pain and as soon as you get any error you can't even open it to fix it (yes,

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

I completely agree that JSON is just reinventing the wheel.  But that seems irrelevant from a marketing perspective.  And HOCON is actually better than either JSON or XML.  If your potential customers first reaction to Maven is 'ick XML' then it doesn't really matter if XML is better.  Just my

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

Playing a bit of devil's advocate here: while I've not used it, there is a maven polyglot plugin that IIRC let's you author your POM in other formats. But yeah, XML can be a pain but XML Schema is super handy in tooling and editors. In the meantime, JSON is just reinventing the wheel... Gary On

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

Sorry to be glib.  I apologize.  But I did have a point.  The attitude that Guillaume has about my emacs (which has been updated more recently than either the JVM or your IDE) is exactly the same attitude I face when I try to get new users to use Maven.  In the case of Maven, it is use of XML

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

Ok, sonny...go back to using software I wrote to do your development. Hunter On Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 03:47:56 PM PDT, Guillaume Nodet wrote: Sounds like the only really plausible answer !  So if they can stay on a runtime which is 10 years old, an editor which has been released

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

Sounds like the only really plausible answer ! So if they can stay on a runtime which is 10 years old, an editor which has been released nearly 38 years ago (well, not the latest version of course, but still...), why can't they stay on maven 3.9 which is a few months old ? My proposal was to

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

emacs Hunter On Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 11:19:43 AM PDT, Guillaume Nodet wrote: One question for people that want JDK 8 support.  What IDE do they use to develop ? Because none of the actual IDE is running JDK 8, though they can be used by JDK 8, just like maven with toolchains. So

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

One question for people that want JDK 8 support. What IDE do they use to develop ? Because none of the actual IDE is running JDK 8, though they can be used by JDK 8, just like maven with toolchains. So really, the argument does not really stand, but for the very minority of devs still using

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

m a dev > that > > doesn't quite understand the history of EE inside java but its 100% easy > to > > do without adding toolchains. > > > > Jeremy > > > > -Original Message----- > > From: Delany > > Sent: Tuesday, June 6, 2023 1:33 AM > >

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

So are we in "I see it as somebody forcing me to move forward" vs "I see it as the project attraction decreasing and the community misbehaving"? Any way we find a compromise or should we just vote and be it? Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau | Blog

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

Am 2023-06-06 um 11:26 schrieb Jean-Baptiste Onofré: Hi, I agree with Guillaume here. It's actually an easy update path. For who? For you? Do you speak for others as well? - To unsubscribe, e-mail:

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

Am 2023-06-06 um 07:42 schrieb Hervé Boutemy: it's not about *one not wanting* to upgrade (anybody can use JDK 17 if they want currently) it's about *one forcing everybody else* to upgrade (and enter the toolchain setup question) EXACTLY!

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

; To: Maven Developers List > Subject: Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0 > > You need toolchains if your code needs the JAXB classes removed in JDK11. > Delany > > > On Tue, 6 Jun 2023 at 01:54, Henning Schmiedehausen < > henn...@schmiedehausen.org>

RE: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

nside java but its 100% easy to do without adding toolchains. Jeremy -Original Message- From: Delany Sent: Tuesday, June 6, 2023 1:33 AM To: Maven Developers List Subject: Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0 You need toolchains if your code needs the JAXB class

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

Hi, I agree with Guillaume here. It's actually an easy update path. Regards JB On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 12:03 PM Guillaume Nodet wrote: > > Le mer. 31 mai 2023 à 11:21, Michael Osipov a écrit : > > > > I think with those improvements, requiring JDK 17 for master should be > > > doable. Any

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

@Hervé: was not really my point, more than forcing the maven version as plugins do also forces the java version so as soon as we decide for maven plugins are good. They can be compiled with java 8 and run on maven 3+4 while API is stable or just maven 4 if not. For external plugins some are

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

you're right that we're currently talking about core, not plugins but this question will inevitably extend from core to plugins, and there are much more plugin developers than core developers then I think that getting a large view is useful and honestly, now that I had the opportunity to do

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

So one dev said he specifically was dealing with an issue that someone else said wouldn't happen.  That's a binary decision which someone can't control, it is just true or not true (i'm assuming that the person who posted knew what they were talking about).  That isn't the same as a matter of

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

Hunter, please keep to facts and do not get on a personal level: > It isn't OK to just ignore their input But then you say: > Your personal taste shouldn't [...] I think you just ignored some other dev's input yourself, as some already voted for JDK11+. > If you leave Java8, you leave behind

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

Do we really care about plugins Hervé? They are compatible with some maven versions so cover the underlying prerequisites, no? Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

> > 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 > > Can you detail it please? While we keep plugin-api java 8 compat -

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

Le mardi 6 juin 2023, 01:54:27 CEST Henning Schmiedehausen a écrit : > To get this discussion a bit more back to actual substance: > > Do you still need toolchains with JDK 11/17? I set the release version to > "8" (or anything else) in my builds, ripped out all the toolchains and it > "just

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

it's not about *one not wanting* to upgrade (anybody can use JDK 17 if they want currently) it's about *one forcing everybody else* to upgrade (and enter the toolchain setup question) I'd be curious to see what will happen the day one of the base plugin force to upgrade:

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

You need toolchains if your code needs the JAXB classes removed in JDK11. Delany On Tue, 6 Jun 2023 at 01:54, Henning Schmiedehausen < henn...@schmiedehausen.org> wrote: > To get this discussion a bit more back to actual substance: > > Do you still need toolchains with JDK 11/17? I set the

RE: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

compilation...it works! Jeremy -Original Message- From: Henning Schmiedehausen Sent: Monday, June 5, 2023 7:54 PM To: Maven Developers List Subject: Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0 To get this discussion a bit more back to actual substance: Do you still need

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

Uhm, I have definitely gotten pushback when I ported some changes back to the 3.8.x branch. The wording was (paraphrasing) "maven 3.8 is dead and we do not plan to do any further releases, so don't add code to it". This was with Maven 3.8.4 :-) -h On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 3:37 AM Guillaume

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

To get this discussion a bit more back to actual substance: Do you still need toolchains with JDK 11/17? I set the release version to "8" (or anything else) in my builds, ripped out all the toolchains and it "just works". We have done this for Jdbi for ages (require Java 11+ as the build JDK; we

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

I have to strongly disagree. If Maven wants to remain relevant it needs to be using a relatively modern JDK and language that is available to open source developers and interesting to work on. Nobody wants to work on Java 8 code. Ultimately the committers and project maintainers can vote and

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

Other projects have tried to do that (given they are different types of projects) and it turned out that keeping JVM8 support going when not compiling on JDK8 proved difficult and when push came to shove, it was JVM 8 support that was dropped.  I know that's not you or this project, but human

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

Your inclination to ignore points of the debate doesn't do your own arguments any justice. Multiple times it's been explained that raising the required runtime JDK in Maven 4 will not prevent you from - building with a lower JDK (via toolchains) - targeting a lower JDK (via the release property) -

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

Hunter, a language done for java (think mojo, no real choice to zmbrace bytecode ecosystem) which is growing is java...scala is dead, groovy dont grow anymore and kotlin kind of stopped too so maybe you do it everydays as some people but ecosystem is clearly not on that side. This part is not

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

Ok, so let's take these points one at a time:* Reduce build matrix, save energySo, less builds which is good but pretty minimal value. * Attract devsAbsolutely not.  If you want to attract devs, switch to a language that is actually growing (no I'm advocating for this).  That isn't Java.  If

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

Seems people missed this (somewhat related) thread: https://lists.apache.org/thread/kpsrb28nst84vtohwngy3140g1r0ydd4 Thanks On Mon, Jun 5, 2023, 20:40 Hunter C Payne wrote: > Hi, Karl, I'm not sure I agree you have "stated a benefit" so far. > There have been plenty of hand-wavy arguments

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

Ok, here's a benefit of Java 11/17 or two: * Reduce build matrix, save energy * Attract devs * CDS for non-OpenJ9-users * Better clarity of code (yes, I mean that) * No additional work (we don't need to migrate, just use the features when modifying a line for a bug/feature anyway) * We leave no

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

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

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

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 >

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

On 05.06.23 13:55, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: Hi Le lun. 5 juin 2023 à 13:22, Elliotte Rusty Harold a écrit : On Sun, Jun 4, 2023 at 10:59 AM Delany wrote: I think the point I'm making is no-one wants to write in an older version of the language they started writing in. Its tedious.

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

Hi, On 05.06.23 13:21, Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote: On Sun, Jun 4, 2023 at 10:59 AM Delany wrote: I think the point I'm making is no-one wants to write in an older version of the language they started writing in. Its tedious. Anyone who started writing java11 code is going to have a hard

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

I'm having trouble reading this email, hang on, let me adjust the rabbit ears on my black and white television... ah better now. I'm sorry what were you saying? :-) Gary On Mon, Jun 5, 2023, 07:22 Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote: > On Sun, Jun 4, 2023 at 10:59 AM Delany wrote: > > > > I think the

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

Hi Le lun. 5 juin 2023 à 13:22, Elliotte Rusty Harold a écrit : > On Sun, Jun 4, 2023 at 10:59 AM Delany wrote: > > > > I think the point I'm making is no-one wants to write in an older version > > of the language they started writing in. Its tedious. Anyone who started > > writing java11

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

On Sun, Jun 4, 2023 at 10:59 AM Delany wrote: > > I think the point I'm making is no-one wants to write in an older version > of the language they started writing in. Its tedious. Anyone who started > writing java11 code is going to have a hard time accepting they need to > write in java8, just

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

I think the point I'm making is no-one wants to write in an older version of the language they started writing in. Its tedious. Anyone who started writing java11 code is going to have a hard time accepting they need to write in java8, just as a java8 will bulk at writing in java5. Of course for

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

Folks who think like that have been using Scala or Kotlin for at least 5 years by now.  If you are still writing Java, it isn't for new features. Hunter PS If you want to use "new features" use Scala or Kotlin.  If you want stability, use Java8.  Using Java17 is a middle ground that gets

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

There may not be a killer feature, but the cumulative changes are appreciated, especially when you're used to them. Having closed the door on whatever came before List.of its like a miniature thorn in my side every time its not available. What motivated the change to JDK8? Were there any negative

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

Le sam. 3 juin 2023 à 11:46, Hervé Boutemy a écrit : > +1 > > I really don't what benefit we get from going to Java 17 > > 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

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

+1 I really don't what benefit we get from going to Java 17 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

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

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

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

Perso I do not have any issue using 17. By curiosity, I wonder what sort of 17 (or 9+) features we really want/need? Pattern matching for switch? record (so we can get rid of Modello but record will be not compatible with previous standard beans). On Fri, 2 Jun 2023 at 09:17, David Jencks

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

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 wrote: > > Hi, > > my clear

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

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

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

As an FYI - https://adoptium.net/en-GB/support/ can give a guide as to the thinking around OSS support for Java 8 (Nov 2026 is the minimum timeline, it may extend). Cheers, Martijn On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 at 23:36, Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote: > On Thu, Jun 1, 2023 at 10:47 AM Romain Manni-Bucau >

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

On Thu, Jun 1, 2023 at 10:47 AM Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: > Yep but this is also something an OSS product don't want to rely on (ie > particular vendor specificities which can change), so we should probably > stick to the global dates and align on these ones consistently. > Yes, but that

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

On Thu, Jun 1, 2023 at 12:51 PM Michael Osipov wrote: > Neither nor. Many use OpenJDK in production even w/o any commercial plans > because they are happy with that. So there is also C. > And that is fine, if they are happy with it, they should be happy with other "same age" tech, so they

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

Neither nor. Many use OpenJDK in production even w/o any commercial plans because they are happy with that. So there is also C. On 2023/06/01 10:48:28 Tamás Cservenák wrote: > This is silly. > So we need to support Java 8 in the future (not yet happened) Maven 4 > releases due: > > A) hobbyist

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

This is silly. So we need to support Java 8 in the future (not yet happened) Maven 4 releases due: A) hobbyist (personal/individual users or for non-production, development/testing purposes) OR B) commercial entities paying for licenses (commercial/business use of those public releases in

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

Le jeu. 1 juin 2023 à 12:39, Elliotte Rusty Harold a écrit : > On Thu, Jun 1, 2023 at 6:28 AM Guillaume Nodet wrote: > > > > JDK 8 active support ended 15 months ago, so I think that's definitely > fine > > to require a newer version. > > This is a common misconception. JDK 8 is fully supported

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

On Thu, Jun 1, 2023 at 6:28 AM Guillaume Nodet wrote: > > JDK 8 active support ended 15 months ago, so I think that's definitely fine > to require a newer version. This is a common misconception. JDK 8 is fully supported by multiple companies including Azul. It also seems supported by Oracle:

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

On 2023/06/01 06:28:18 Guillaume Nodet wrote: > JDK 8 active support ended 15 months ago, so I think that's definitely fine > to require a newer version. I don't think we should wait and support JDK 8 > until 2030 and then switch from JDK 8 to what, JDK 24 ? That's really not a > good plan imho

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

Sounds like a plan to me we have to adopt the new JDK release schedule somehow anyway, we cant stick on java 8 now it is EOL and java 11 soon so today only java 17 is a fair option for users. Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau | Blog

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

JDK 8 active support ended 15 months ago, so I think that's definitely fine to require a newer version. I don't think we should wait and support JDK 8 until 2030 and then switch from JDK 8 to what, JDK 24 ? That's really not a good plan imho and that's what maintenance branches are used for. The

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

+1 Totally also agree with upping to Java 17. Working mostly on Trino these days and we have been on 17 for quite a while and are getting ready to go to 21 soon after it hits. In my opinion Maven should do the same. There should be no reason not to support and also default to the latest LTS.

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

I also would like to point out that OpenJDK 8 support will surpass 11 by 2030: https://endoflife.date/java - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

Hi all, >From my perspective having Java 17 as the minimal runtime for maven itself is fine. I have several projects that need to produce Java 8 binaries and I have been running all my builds with Java 17 for quite some time now. The toolchains setup works fine for all use cases I have seen so

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

That one needs java to *RUN* maven is an implementation detail for me and the actual java version do not matter. At best maven would ship with whatever JVM is required, or has a launcher that downloads one or ... e.g. for Eclipse IDE (and other software as well) one simply downloads a package

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

These are JDKs used as "Module JDK". These are JDKs that compile the source code or run the tests (as the default option). Regardless of the language level setting. So the first line reads like this: "Among IntelliJ Ultimate users with Maven projects, 49.1% have at least one module that is

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

Thank you! But I have a problem understanding this info AFAIK, IDEA embeds Java "that runs on". So what is this, targeted platforms? (like maven.compiler.release?) Or JDKs registered in IDE used for projects? Thanks T On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 4:00 PM Nikita Skvortsov wrote: > > sure, it

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

> sure, it would be nice to see those numbers... :) Here we go. The numbers below are for users who have Maven projects. Please note that the same user can report multiple JDKs, so numbers do not add up to 100. For IntelliJ Ultimate, the Top 5 JDK versions are: 8 - 49.1% 17 - 37.4% 11 - 27.2%

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

Think whatever version we release we must meet the most common version for project starting when release is around, as of today - and even in a year - it will not be 21 but 17 AFAIK so 17 looks natural if we intend to have a 4.0.0 < 2 yearselse 21 is very relevant. Anything else goes legacy on

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

Good question! :D On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 2:34 PM Delany wrote: > Excuse my ignorance but what do customer requirements have to do with the > build tool's required JDK? > Delany > > > On Wed, 31 May 2023 at 13:57, Elliotte Rusty Harold > wrote: > > > On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 8:30 AM Guillaume

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

(Non-binding chatter) I'm ok with Java 17 but since M4 feels like it's not around the corner, why not go for Java 21-EA and possibly learn even more cool tech. Surely Java 21 which is an LTS version will be released as GA before M4. Gary On Wed, May 31, 2023, 04:30 Guillaume Nodet wrote: >

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

Excuse my ignorance but what do customer requirements have to do with the build tool's required JDK? Delany On Wed, 31 May 2023 at 13:57, Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote: > On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 8:30 AM Guillaume Nodet wrote: > > > I think with those improvements, requiring JDK 17 for master

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

Howdy Nikita, sure, it would be nice to see those numbers... :) Thanks Tamas On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 2:25 PM Nikita Skvortsov wrote: > > Do we have some download stats (not a poll) - maybe on sdkman or some jdk > > vendors side? > > Dear Maven team, > > Would it help you to make the decision

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 1:59 PM Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote: > That's not really true. Short of a complete fork, new versions can't > go out without effort from PMC members. Users cannot effectively > self-serve here. > That's not what Guillaume said. Nobody mentioned "self serve". Simply put,

  1   2   >