Depending on how well we can support ongoing compatibility with multiple
versions, we may be able to support two LTS releases concurrently for some
time even. This also depends on how well applications support the new
multiversion jar feature.
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 22:57, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com>
> > On Feb 13, 2018, at 9:26 PM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com>
> > 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
> >> 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
> >> with Java 9 in April are we going to tell them to try it with Java 10?
> >> have always been a bit lax (as we are with Java 7) since we know that
> >> are some companies that have purchased support. I can’t imagine these
> >> (ultra conservative) companies upgrading to a non-LTS release so I
> >> 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
> >> 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
> And now you understand why I brought this up. I guess I am encouraging
> that we make an “editorial” comment on our web site by way of saying how
> much of a pita this is and how Log4j is going to deal with it. And we
> apologize in advance for how this may effect our users.
Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com>