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>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>
>

Reply via email to