On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 5:04 PM, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> While I agree with your statements regarding Java 7 and 8 I can’t think of > why we would ever want to have Java 9 or 10 be the minimum supported > version. Would you be comfortable saying that knowing that those versions > aren’t supported by Oracle in any way for anyone? > Pardon my brain fog but I am not sure what you mean by "Would you be comfortable saying that knowing that those versions aren’t supported by Oracle in any way for anyone?" WRT Java 9, I am very disappointed by the mess that Java multi-release jars are causing in tool chains and Java modules feel like OSGi NIH. I would be happy to sit on Java 8 for a while. Gary > Ralph > > > On Feb 13, 2018, at 3:26 PM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 9:44 PM, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com > > > > wrote: > > > >> I found this update that says Oracle has extended the public support of > >> Java 8 about 4 months past the release of Java 11. > >> https://www.infoq.com/news/2018/02/Java8SupportJan18 < > >> https://www.infoq.com/news/2018/02/Java8SupportJan18> > >> > > > > I do not think we need to create ourselves a set of handcuffs here. I > could > > see a "Roadmap" page that states that the next version will be 2.11.0 and > > that will be Java 7 and that we imagine 2.x staying on Java 7. Next will > be > > 3.0.0 which will be Java 8. Anything beyond that is speculation. > > > > Gary > > > > > > > >> Ralph > >> > >>> On Feb 12, 2018, at 5:28 PM, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> There is an article at InfoQ that discusses Oracle’s support strategy > >> [1]. It contains a chart that shows the support lifetime for all Oracle > >> releases. [2] It references a blog post from Azul discussing Oracle’s > >> support strategy. [3] These charts are confirmed by Oracle’s roadmap. > [4]. > >> The end of public updates for Java 7 was in April 2015 and the end of > >> premier support is July 2019. [5] > >>> > >>> First, based on this and the decline in the interest in Java 7 and that > >> we are now about 3 years past the last public updates I am fine with > making > >> Java 8 our minimum version along with the release of Log4j 3.0. FWIW, > while > >> SLF4J still supports Java 5, as of today Logback 1.3.0 now requires a > >> minimum of Java 8. > >>> > >>> After that things start to get strange. I think we will have to take > >> advantage of the multi-release jar support more and more in the future > >> because I don’t see how we could ever make Java 9 or 10 the minimum > >> supported version since Oracle will effectively drop support for them 6 > >> months after they are introduced. I would think we would have to wait > until > >> Java 8 usage declines to the levels Java 7 currently is before upgrading > >> and at that time we would have to skip all the way to Java 11. > >>> > >>> Whatever we decide to do I would prefer if we could publish our JVM > >> support strategy on the web site. > >>> > >>> Ralph > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 1. https://www.infoq.com/news/2018/01/JavaSupportJan18 < > >> https://www.infoq.com/news/2018/01/JavaSupportJan18> > >>> 2. https://res.infoq.com/news/2018/01/JavaSupportJan18/en/ > >> resources/1java-se-lifecycle-5-year-timeline-1024x683-1517328730133.jpg > < > >> https://res.infoq.com/news/2018/01/JavaSupportJan18/en/ > >> resources/1java-se-lifecycle-5-year-timeline-1024x683- > 1517328730133.jpg> > >>> 3. https://www.azul.com/java-stable-secure-free-choose-two-three/ < > >> https://www.azul.com/java-stable-secure-free-choose-two-three/> > >>> 4. http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/eol-135779.html < > >> http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/eol-135779.html> > >>> 5. http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/eol- > >> 135779.html#java-commercial-offerings <http://www.oracle.com/ > >> technetwork/java/javase/eol-135779.html#java-commercial-offerings> > >> > >> > > >
