On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 6:22 PM, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> Well, here are some things to think about. > 1. When Oracle drops support for Java 9 next month does that mean we want > to replace it with Java 10 in our toolchain? > a. Infra still includes JDK 1.4 in its list of choices so I’m sure > they will continue to allow Java 9 to be used. > b. I see nothing in Java 10 that we would need to support or would > impact Log4j users. > c. I know you like to make sure we are always compatible with the > latest everything, so I don’t know why this would be any different. > 2. How will this impact our support strategy? If someone reports a problem > with Java 9 in April are we going to tell them to try it with Java 10? We > have always been a bit lax (as we are with Java 7) since we know that there > are some companies that have purchased support. I can’t imagine these same > (ultra conservative) companies upgrading to a non-LTS release so I really > do doubt that anyone will be using Java 9 in production come June. > > If Oracle decides to provide support outside of what they have publicly > stated of course they can do that, but I doubt you or I will ever know > about it. I suspect most open source projects will take them at their word > and more or less ignore non-LTS releases. > This sounds like Oracle's way of trying to get more money from Java 6/7/8 and also declaring Java 9/10 DOA and Java 11 as the next release to use. This is all awful. MR jars, Modules, and now this. What a stinking pile :-( Gary > > Ralph > > > On Feb 13, 2018, at 5:50 PM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 5:17 PM, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com > > > > wrote: > > > >> Did you look at any of the links in my email? Java 10 will be released > in > >> March. When that happens Java 9 will be unsupported for everyone. You > >> cannot purchase support for it or get security updates. It is dead. > > > > > > I seriously doubt that Oracle will turn down a pile of cash when some > > Fortune 500 company asks for maintenance on some random Java 7/8/9/10/11 > > version. For what's available for free OTOH, all bests are off indeed. > > > > > >> The same thing will happen with Java 10 in September when Java 11 is > >> released. So having a policy that we will only ever choose an LTS > version > >> as our minimum supported version makes sense to me. We can even predict > >> when we will do that if we want. > >> > > > > If we want to say that in the future, we plan on only supporting LTS > > releases, sure, we can say that now, but what's the point? We are so far > > from that it seems. We could say that that's what we'd like to do as > > something sensible and not leading to a trip to the loony bin. But it > seems > > like future tripping since we are thinking on staying on Java 8 for a > > while. > > > > Gary > > > > > >> That isn’t to say we cannot support Java 10+ features. The multi-release > >> jar was introduced to explicitly allow us to do that, although I agree > it > >> is unfortunate that it was done in a way that causes so much grief. > >> > >> Ralph > >> > >>> On Feb 13, 2018, at 5:10 PM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> 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> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >> > >> > >> > > >
