https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-8024 I created the other issue regarding importing beam to a Java11 project that uses JPMS. I confirmed* in a pet project that this is happening (linked in the issue).
*no shock here, I just wanted to play with it. Łukasz śr., 21 sie 2019 o 14:53 Łukasz Gajowy <lgaj...@apache.org> napisał(a): > Thank you, Elliotte for showing us the issues with JPMS. > > So maybe we should just announce for end users that they can run Beam > pipelines in Java 11 but that for the moment Beam modules cannot be > used in Java 11 module style. I know that there is already a lot of > fear around Java 8 not being maintained so this will probably be > perceived well even if not perfect. > > +1 for sharing this information to the users. IMO this is really valuable > knowledge. > > Łukasz > > > > > śr., 21 sie 2019 o 12:22 Ismaël Mejía <ieme...@gmail.com> napisał(a): > >> Thanks again Elliotte for the clear information and references. It >> seems that being compatible with Java 11 modules will be more elusive >> than expected considering the transitive dependencies. Do you (or >> someone else) knows if there there is a plugin or easy way to discover >> this? >> >> I think that solving this for transitive dependencies will be elusive >> for a LONG LONG time (I had not even thought about IO modules that >> have dependencies and commonly live in ‘older’ stable versions). So >> maybe we should just announce for end users that they can run Beam >> pipelines in Java 11 but that for the moment Beam modules cannot be >> used in Java 11 module style. I know that there is already a lot of >> fear around Java 8 not being maintained so this will probably be >> perceived well even if not perfect. >> >> I filled https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-8021 to set >> explicitly the module names. We will probably need also to put some >> validation in place that the jars always include the module name so >> new modules don’t forget to do so. >> >> >> On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 3:28 AM Elliotte Rusty Harold >> <elh...@ibiblio.org> wrote: >> > >> > If somebody is using JPMS and they attempt to import beam, they get a >> > compile time error. Some other projects I work on have been getting >> > user reports about this. >> > >> > See >> https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/cloud-opensource-java/blob/master/library-best-practices/JLBP-19.md >> > for more details. >> > >> > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 5:30 PM Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com> wrote: >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 8:37 AM Elliotte Rusty Harold < >> elh...@ibiblio.org> wrote: >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 7:51 AM Ismaël Mejía <ieme...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > >>> >> > >>> a per case approach (the exception could be portable runners not >> based on Java). >> > >>> >> > >>> Of course other definitions of being Java 11 compatible are >> interesting but probably not part of our current scope. Actions like change >> the codebase to use Java 11 specific APIs / idioms, publish Java 11 >> specific artifacts or use Java Platform Modules (JPM). All of these may be >> nice to have but are probably less important for end users who may just >> want to be able to use Beam in its current form in Java 11 VMs. >> > >>> >> > >>> What do others think? Is this enough to announce Java 11 >> compatibility and add the documentation to the webpage? >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> No, it isn't, I fear. We don't have to use JPMS in Beam, but Beam >> really does need to be compatible with JPMS-using apps. The bare minimum >> here is avoiding split packages, and that needs to include all transitive >> dependencies, not just Beam itself. I don't think we meet that bar now. >> > > >> > > >> > > For my understanding, what would be the limitations of Beam's >> dependencies having split dependencies? Would it limit Beam users from >> using 3rd party libraries that require JPMS supports? Would it be in scope >> for Beam to get its dependencies to meet a certain bar? >> > > >> > > Ismaël's definition of being able to run Beam published dependencies >> in Java 11 VM sounds enough to me "to announce Java 11 compatibility _for >> Beam_". >> > > >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> -- >> > >> Elliotte Rusty Harold >> > >> elh...@ibiblio.org >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Elliotte Rusty Harold >> > elh...@ibiblio.org >> >
