> On Nov 16, 2017, at 7:02 AM, Sergey Beryozkin <[email protected]> wrote: > > Indeed it will take a long time for a team with the limited resources to have > CXF embracing Java 9. Postponing the start of this long process for 2 years > or so and wait for the users to come in and say, when will CXF will do what > SpringBoot with Java 9 can do, is not strategically right move IMHO.
+1000!!!! > > Have the Java 9 branch, let people spend as much time as needed to play > there, keep going with Java 8+9 in 3.2.1. I don't see where the conflict is +1,000,000!!! Jeff > > Cheers. Sergey > On 16/11/17 13:53, Andriy Redko wrote: >> Modules are really far away in the future (IMHO). As per my understanding, we >> could think about real modules only when all our dependencies are >> modularized, >> which would take quite a lot of time I suppose. The Reactive Streams part is >> really appealing *BUT* even there we **could** keep the same master for 8 >> and 9 >> (http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/238). >> Honestly, I am not 100% sure we have to branch off the new master and keep it >> Java 9 only right now. May be the good moment will be when we discountinue >> 3.1.x so at least the code will be much easier to cherry-pick? >> Best Regards, >> Andriy Redko >> CS> I am not sure sure about the need for Java 9 modules. Currently I see no >> CS> user requesting this. It is also not yet fully clear how these modules >> CS> behave in OSGi. As far as I understood as soon as we start with this we >> CS> have code that is not working in Java 8. As we require every change to be >> CS> done in master first this means we have a lot of back port work. A Java 9 >> CS> only master will also make it much harder for Java 8 users to supply pull >> CS> requests as they have to develop and test on java 9 which is not their >> CS> production system. >> CS> So I think the current situation with a master that works on Java 9 and >> CS> Java 8 is a pretty good situation that we should keep for as long as >> CS> possible. >> CS> I am not sure how attractive the other Java 9 features are. Personally I >> CS> were really eager to adopt Java 8 because of the closures but I see no >> real >> CS> need for myself to rush to java 9. >> CS> When I remember how reluctant we were when it came to adopting the >> previous >> CS> java versions like 7 and 8 as minimal requirement I think it makes sense >> to >> CS> do this rather slowly. >> CS> Christian >> CS> 2017-11-16 13:31 GMT+01:00 Sergey Beryozkin <[email protected]>: >>>> Hi Andriy >>>> I'm only presuming that yes, a Java 9 only master would have to support >>>> the new Java 9 modules system, so I'd say a lot of exciting work would >>>> await for the CXF dev community :-) >>>> Cheers, Sergey >>>> On 16/11/17 12:19, Andriy Redko wrote: >>>>> Hey Sergey, >>>>> Do we have a goal to support Java 9 modules (aka Jigsaw) for >>>>> the new master branch? Or we just looking to benefit from the >>>>> latest changes in stardand library (as you mentioned, Flow & Co, >>>>> collections are also a good example)? Is our current master JDK9 >>>>> compatible actually (haven't seen successfull builds from >>>>> https://builds.apache.org/job/CXF-Master-JDK9) ? >>>>> Best Regards, >>>>> Andriy Redko >>>>> SB> It's pretty simple really. It's about having a new impetus for the CXF >>>>> SB> development. >>>>> SB> Without a Java 9 only master CXF will be about fixing the bugs only. >>>>> SB> JAX-WS is done long time ago, next version of JAX-RS will take N >>>>> amount >>>>> SB> of time to materialize. >>>>> SB> Java 9 with its Flow class will let CXF do new work around Reactive >>>>> SB> support. It will have new features that only work with Java 9 and may >>>>> SB> give new ideas for the contributions. >>>>> SB> 3.2.x is at the start of its life-cycle and will have a couple of >>>>> years >>>>> SB> at least for it to retire, giving Java 8 support. >>>>> SB> 3.1.x has probably 6 months or so left in it, and after it's gone we >>>>> SB> will have 3.2.x and 4.0.x or whatever new version is preferred. >>>>> SB> Sergey >>>>> SB> On 16/11/17 08:15, Dennis Kieselhorst wrote: >>>>>> On 2017-11-16 07:27, Christian Schneider <[email protected]> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> I dont think we can already predict when users move to Java 9. >>>>>>>> So creating a Java 9 only branch at this time means we have to >>>>>>>> maintain two >>>>>>>> main branches over a long time. >>>>>>>> What is the rationale behind a Java 9 only branch compared to being >>>>>>>> Java 9 >>>>>>>> and Java 8 compatible on master? >>>>>>> I also don't see a good reason to do that at the moment. Let's release >>>>>>> the XJC plugin and users should be able to use CXF with Java 9 or am I >>>>>>> missing something? >>>>>>> Cheers >>>>>>> Dennis >> CS> --
