OK, thanks! I'm not getting why the Java version is relevant though. Multi-release JAR format was introduced with Java 9 (and Java 8 will just ignore the related directories inside META-INF, so we are also Java 8 compatible.)
On Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 10:17 AM Jacques Le Roux < jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> wrote: > Le 19/08/2024 à 14:01, Daniel Dekany a écrit : > > While we have not much changes accumulated yet, the tooling related > > issues with 2.3.33 freemarker.jar (see below) warrants an urgent > > release. > > > > The current change log of 2.3.34 is this: > > > https://freemarker.apache.org/builds/2.3.34-SNAPSHOT/_html/versions_2_3_34.html > > > > Latest build is published to the Apache snapshot repo: > > > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/snapshots/org/freemarker/freemarker/2.3.34-SNAPSHOT/ > > > > About the tooling related issues: 2.3.33 freemarker.jar contains class > > files compiled with various Java versions (8, 9, and 16). In theory, > > that should work, but is unusual. It turns out, Maven Enforcer, and > > apparently GraalVM Native complains about it. Maybe other tools have > > problems with it too. So we switched to "multi-release JAR" (JEP 238) > > format, which is the clean and official solution for our problem > > anyway. However, that's not a very well-known Java feature, and I can > > imagine that proper support for it is spotty. So, does it work with > > your tooling (like does the build issue warnings)? Does it work in > > your runtime environment (print the return value of > > _Java9.isSupported(), and _Java16.isSupported() to see, also if you > > are using record support successfully, that's another proof that it's > > still working)? > > > > Also note in the README that ad-hoc "main" methods from the IDE won't > > work properly anymore, and you have to create a JUnit test instead. > > > > Thanks for any help! > Hi Daniel, > > We (OFBiz community) have started testing with > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-13131 > > We use Java 17 in trunk, I don't think we will backport in our current > stable version (18.12 branch) because it uses Java 11 and 2.3.33 is quite > OK > > For now we did not cross any issues. > > Thanks > > Jacques -- Best regards, Daniel Dekany
