I've been doing the same successfully for local builds and testing, though I haven't verified that the bytecode is generated targeting java 9.
On Fri, Apr 19, 2019, at 00:10, Matt Sicker wrote: > I set up my local toolchain config file with java 8 and 11. There’s a bug > in pom.xml currently where you need to add a duplicate entry for java 11 as > version 9. In theory, you could just use java 11 to compile everything. > > On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 17:57, Ralph Goers <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > I am not sure what the concern here is. We build releases using Java 7 > > for most of the Log4j build and build with Java 9 for certain components > > that require features that were added there. Log4j 2 2.x is supported on > > Java 7 and above. > > > > Log4j 2.3.0, which is still under development, will require a minimum of > > Java 8. > > > > Is there a concern here that I am missing? > > > > Ralph > > > > > On Apr 18, 2019, at 2:51 PM, German Gonzalez-Morris < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > As we all know, JDK9 is deprecated, which version of JDK are you using to > > > build log4j2 from sources ? > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > German Gonzalez-Morris > > > > > > ---- > > > > > > ``Antes de imprimir este e-mail piense bien si es realmente necesario'' > > > ``Before printing think about the Environment'' > > > > > > -- > Matt Sicker <[email protected]> >
