Hey guys,
It feels like a right time to resume the discussion around Java 9. The adoption
of modules is slowly but is taking
off. I run into this article
https://www.javaadvent.com/2017/12/automatic-module-name-calling-java-library-maintainers.html
by
Sander Mak (co-author of Java 9 Modularity book) recently, he gives pretty
pragmatic advice on how to start embracing the
modular applications. Indeed, the first steps are pretty low risk and
straightforward, just updating the MANIFEST.MF files.
Also, I have checked a couple of leading Java libraries (f.e. Spring Framework)
and can confirm that they already did the
relevant updates. Does it sound like a good idea? It does not require a
dedicated Java 9 master but something with could
do in the current one. Thanks.
Best Regards,
Andriy Redko
SB> Hi Jeff
SB> Good to hear from you, thanks for the feedback :-).
SB> I suppose there's some consensus that in the next few months the team
SB> should probably spend more time with using Java 9 with CXF 3.2.x, and
SB> really get a better appreciation of what Java 9 is and which tools are
SB> available around (such as may be Maven Java 9 related as Dan indicated,
SB> etc) as it's fair enough to say that some of us (incl. myself) are not
SB> doing practical Java 9 at all at the moment...
SB> Hopefully that will help, perhaps another round of discussions will
SB> follow afterwards, we'll see.
SB> Thanks, Sergey
SB> On 17/11/17 03:42, Jeff Genender wrote:
>>> 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> --
