Does minimum [Java] version refer to the runtime the tools require or the JVM that we can target? I think Java 17 is a sensible minimum for Groovy 6. With Groovy 5 supporting Java 11 and Groovy 4 supporting Java 8.
________________________________ From: Christopher Smith <chrylis+gro...@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2025 7:29 AM To: dev@groovy.apache.org <dev@groovy.apache.org> Subject: [EXT] Re: [DISCUSS] Minimum version for Groovy 6 External Email: Use caution with links and attachments. I'm at a very small startup, and we still haven't migrated past Java 11, simply because there were some bugs in some libraries we used with 17, and we only have one and a half people working on the backend. We're planning to leapfrog to 25 when it's released, so we need *support* for compiling/running on 25, but 17 as a baseline makes it much more sense to me. One task I'd like to work on for Groovy 6 (hoped for 5 but just haven't had the bandwidth) is an update of the signatures for the GDK extension methods to support JDK functional interfaces in addition to, and perhaps eventually partly instead of, Closure. `with`, for example, has magical properties for a closure's delegate, so perhaps it always keeps that overload, but it's frustrating not being able to invoke it with a library Function without a bunch of extra overhead. Christopher Smith On Sun, Aug 24, 2025, 07:07 Guillaume Laforge <glafo...@gmail.com<mailto:glafo...@gmail.com>> wrote: I also like the idea of going with 17. Of course, we don't yet really know when Groovy will be released, but it sounds like a safe version to base it on, without cutting with users who may not have migrated beyond 17. Guillaume Laforge Apache Groovy committer Developer Advocate @ Google Cloud<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://cloud.google.com/__;!!GFN0sa3rsbfR8OLyAw!fLFWFBnOph9gaBqWJqBVKKhaaYsWZUlH9X4b1q-0h7RZ7BYPTu3NtDhBpoDjreOpEGbZCff8KVLN_Kt4TyM0SJIE_lSlpZg$> * Blog: glaforge.dev<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://glaforge.dev/__;!!GFN0sa3rsbfR8OLyAw!fLFWFBnOph9gaBqWJqBVKKhaaYsWZUlH9X4b1q-0h7RZ7BYPTu3NtDhBpoDjreOpEGbZCff8KVLN_Kt4TyM0SJIEw3OGYxM$> * X: @glaforge<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://twitter.com/glaforge__;!!GFN0sa3rsbfR8OLyAw!fLFWFBnOph9gaBqWJqBVKKhaaYsWZUlH9X4b1q-0h7RZ7BYPTu3NtDhBpoDjreOpEGbZCff8KVLN_Kt4TyM0SJIE0Ntj4XY$> * Bluesky: @glaforge.dev<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://bsky.app/profile/glaforge.dev__;!!GFN0sa3rsbfR8OLyAw!fLFWFBnOph9gaBqWJqBVKKhaaYsWZUlH9X4b1q-0h7RZ7BYPTu3NtDhBpoDjreOpEGbZCff8KVLN_Kt4TyM0SJIEInEQs_Y$> * Mastodon: @glafo...@uwyn.net<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://*40glafo...@uwyn.net/__;JQ!!GFN0sa3rsbfR8OLyAw!fLFWFBnOph9gaBqWJqBVKKhaaYsWZUlH9X4b1q-0h7RZ7BYPTu3NtDhBpoDjreOpEGbZCff8KVLN_Kt4TyM0SJIE2VqbkEg$> Le dim. 24 août 2025, 12:58, Andres Almiray <aalmi...@gmail.com<mailto:aalmi...@gmail.com>> a écrit : Sounds doable, considering that Maven 4 will also use Java 17. They have long discussed whether jumping to 21 should be the case as they want to support the last 2 LTS. With Java 25 coming closer (next month) there's a group pushing for jumping to 21. In our case I think staying with 17 is OK. Cheers, Andres On Sun, Aug 24, 2025 at 12:44 PM Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au<mailto:pa...@asert.com.au>> wrote: Hi folks, Now that 5 is out, I created a GROOVY_5_0_X branch, and master has become Groovy 6. We should discuss a minimum JDK version we plan to support for Groovy 6. My current thinking is that since we are typically very conservative with the minimum version, we should bump to JDK17. I am hoping Groovy 6 will be delivered with a quicker window than Groovy 5, but there hasn't been any discussion about features as yet, so it's a little hard to predict. I think JDK17 gives us a nice increment where we can make numerous advances, and if the release is taking longer than we expected, we can always adjust our decision. But, I'm interested in what others think ... Cheers, Paul.
