I agree on the complexity argument - and FWIW we still have many apps on
JDK 8 and are intimidated by the Spring upgrade, so I understand that. :)
Sounds like we agree there's no runtime impact?
John
On Thu, May 30, 2024 at 9:31 AM Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com>
wrote:
>
>
> > On May 30, 2024, at 6:37 AM, Engebretson, John
> <jeng...@amazon.com.INVALID> wrote:
> >
> > On 2024/04/10 01:45:19 Ralph Goers wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Apr 9, 2024, at 3:52 PM, Piotr P. Karwasz <pi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> BTW: Maybe SLF4J still uses Java 8, but the latest Logback uses Java
> 11.
> >>
> >> Ask me if I care about Logback. ;-)
> >>
> >> Ralph
> >
> >
> >
> > Following up on this chain re: JDK 8 vs. 17 – code compiled against JDK
> 8 should run the same as that code compiled against JDK 17. Language
> features are clearly limited to JDK 8 but that doesn’t appear to be an
> immediate issue.
> >
> > So, other than enabling new features, what is the driver for targeting
> JDK 17?
> >
> > John
>
> For 3.x? Maintenance is simpler for one. The more JDKs we support the
> more I have to have installed on my laptop. It also does make it simpler to
> take advantage of and support new language features.
>
> Remember that most of us have $dayjobs. Over 90% of the apps I support at
> work have moved off of JDK 8. Most are on JDK 11 but some have moved up to
> JDK 17. To be honest, all are apps would be there if moving to Spring 3.x
> wasn’t so hard.
>
> Ralph
