Would it be fair to conclude that for the next couple of months it would make sense to keep master in "8+9" state, while gradually explore the real need to introduce the new master (Java 9 only)? I would be curious to see how RxJava2 and/or Reactor would provide the integration with Java 9 Flow API (https://github.com/ReactiveX/RxJava/wiki/Reactive-Streams) ...
"The plan is to also support Java 9 j.u.c.Flow types by leveraging new Java multi-versioned jars to support this when using RxJava 2.x in Java 9 while still working on Java 8." I have heard that multi-versioned jars are **not** straigthfoward, but perhaps better than keeping two masters. DK> I’d much rather keep master a “8+9” type of thing for a while. I don’t see ANYONE moving to Java 9 for production stuff any time soon. DK> That said, at some point soon, I’d like to make master more “Java 9 Friendly” and hopefully release a 3.3 at some DK> point in the future that supports java8, but may be more friendly for Java9. Not 100% sure what that would DK> entail, but I would definitely be open to the idea of releases being done with Java9 that would allow additional modules for Java9 users. DK> It’s kind of similar to how we moved from JAX-WS 2.1 to 2.2. Until we went Java7 only, we had a separate profile DK> that added additional src directories and such for JAX-WS 2.2. On Java 5/6, we had to do JAX-WS 2.1 so the code in DK> the normal src/main/java directories was all Java5/6 with JAX-WS 2.1. However, we had a separate src/man/jaxws22 DK> source directory that contained the additional classes and such that were needed for JAX-WS 2.2. At release time, DK> we had to make sure we used the appropriate JDK/Profile to get that included. DK> Now, what does “Java 9 Friendly” entail? Not really sure. Off the top of my head, I would definitely start by DK> including dependencies for all the javax.* API’s. Example, core depends on JAXB so add the jaxb-api jar. This DK> would definitely reduce the amount of “patch-module” things that are needed to use CXF on Java9. However, it’s not DK> something to do on 3.2.x as it adds a ton of dependencies that users may need/want to exclude so not a “patch” DK> thing. As part of this, we’d also update to as many dependencies that are module friendly as possible. We DK> could also have additional source dirs or similar to the tree for Java 9 “cool things”, providing we can still DK> compile with —target=1.8. Another example could possibly be an update to the http client transport to use the DK> Java9 HttpClient. If run on Java8, we’d stick with URLConnection, on Java9, use HttpClient. DK> I know Java9 supports the “Multi-Release JAR”, but I’m not sure if Maven can handle/generate those yet. Something else to look into. DK> Dan >> On Nov 15, 2017, at 6:47 AM, Sergey Beryozkin <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi >> >> Should we open a new Java 9 only master soon enough ? >> >> Thanks, Sergey
